Criminal Law PDF

Criminal Law Causes of crime ​ What is the leading factor in determining criminal behaviour? What are the top three best predictors of criminal behaviour? ​ Age, 15-18 ​ Gender, male ​ Poverty, so many other factors are directly related to poverty These basic factors must not however be c...

Criminal Law Causes of crime ​ What is the leading factor in determining criminal behaviour? What are the top three best predictors of criminal behaviour? ​ Age, 15-18 ​ Gender, male ​ Poverty, so many other factors are directly related to poverty These basic factors must not however be construed as grounds for stereotyping individuals or groups as being naturally predisposed towards crime The Criminal Equation 1.​ ACTUS REUS “The guilty action” ​ The action must be voluntary ​ It can also be a failure to do something — an omission ​ It can also be a “state of being” + 2.​ MENS REA “The guilty mind” ​ Must be deliberate “intent” to break the law — no accidents ​ General Intent — deliberate purpose ​ Specific Intent — an in deliberate act but still responsible TYPES OF CRIME Summary Conviction Offences ​ Minor offences for which an accused can be arrested or summoned to court without delay. ​ The maximum penalty for most summary convictions is $2,000 ​ and/or 6 months in prison. ​ All provincial offences are summary. Ex: section 175. (1) Everyone who (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing, or using insulting or obscene language (ti) be being drunk or (it) by impeding or molesting other persons is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. Indictable Offences ​ Serious crimes that incur more severe penalties ​ The Criminal Code sets a maximum penalty for each offence, up to life imprisonment. ​ The punishment is imposed at the discretion of a judge. Ex: section 235. (1) Everyone who commits first-degree murder or second-degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hybrid Offences or Dual Procedure Offences Offences that the Crown has the right to choose whether to proceed summarily or by indictment. Ex: section 266. Everyone who commits an assault is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or (b) Ban offence punishable on summary conviction DEFENCES Self-defence vs Stand Your Ground (lethal Self-defence) ​ In Canada, you must first attempt to retreat before you can use lethal force. In the US, 25 states have “Stand your Ground® laws which allow you to meet “force with force” and you have no obligation to retreat. ALIBI — the accused was not at the scene of the crime when it took place, and therefore could not have committed the crime. A complete alibi must include three components: 1. A statement by the accused claiming they were not present at the crime scene when the crime was committed. 2. An explanation of where they were. 3. Names of any witnesses who can confirm the alibi. Consent — Free and voluntary agreement This person giving consent must be in clear faculties and providing it without any duress or coercion. Duress — Someone is threatened or coerced to do something against his or her will ​ The accused claim to have been forced to commit a crime as the result of being in imminent danger Double Jeopardy — prohibition against being tried for the same offence twice ​ The crown can only retry someone if it can prove that the crown committed an error and that error contributed to the verdict. Intoxication ​ May only be used as a partial offence. ​ Generally, an intoxicated person cannot form specific intent but may be found guilty of general intent offence ​ If successful, this defence can lower a conviction or reduce a criminal sentence. Mistake of Law — Ignorance of the law, or not knowing a particular offence was illegal, is not a valid defence. Mistake of Facts — Ignorance of the facts, or not understanding all the details of a situation, can be used as a defence. (lacks mens rea) Entrapment — The action of inducing a person into committing an offence ​ The police cannot encourage a person to commit a crime, they can only create situations where the individual chooses to commit a crime. ​ Sting operations are highly unethical Necessity — Committing a crime only under extreme circumstances with no other options ​ The supreme court has ruled that this defence may only be used in situations where the appears to be “imminent risk” Insanity (NCRMD, no criminally responsible for mental disorder) — not response due to an episodic or persistent psychiatric disease Provocation — Any action or words that might cause a reasonable person to behave irrationally or to lose self-control ​ Only a partial defence. Can still result in a sentence being reduced Murder to Manslaughter Automatism — An involuntary action by someone STIPULATIONS: ​ A criminal act must be voluntary for it to be a crime; so the courts have equated this to being conscious. If an act is committed in an unconscious state there can't be actus reus and so an acquittal must be granted. To be acquitted, the accused must prove that he or she was in a state of automatism when committing the offence. Examples, automatism: CASE 1 ​ A defendant drove a truck into parked cars on the shoulder of the road, killing two people. ○​ He claimed he did not see the flashing lights of the parked cars because he was "driving without awareness" induced by "repetitive visual stimulus experienced on long journeys on straight flat roads". DECISION: ​ Jury accepted his defence of automatism and he was acquitted. ​ He was later found guilty on appeal. CASE 2 ​ The defendant was diabetic and in a state of hypo-glycaemia he injured a person. ​ He collapsed after the assault and could not recall it. He had taken his insulin that morning but had eaten very little and had been drinking. ​ The defendant had a history of being admitted to hospital in a semi-conscious or unconscious state DECISION: The trial judge said he suffered from non-insane automatism and acquitted him. The Appeal Judge reversed the decision. CASE 3 ​ A female defendant was involved in an armed robbery causing bodily harm. ​ A few days earlier she had been raped by one of her accomplices. ​ She claimed she was in a dream-like state when she committed the crimes. DECISION: The Judge accepted the defence of automatism based on the fact she may have experienced post-traumatic stress. The jury still convicted her. CASE 4 ​ A female defendant threatened to kill a man while brandishing a weapon. ​ She was already on probation for manslaughter by reason of diminished ​ responsibility. ​ She brought evidence to show a history of psychological disturbances and violent behaviour when on her menstrual cycle. DECISION: Guilty but was given probation on the condition she undergoes a drug treatment program. CASE 5 ​ The defendant hit his ten-year-old son on the head with a hammer and threw him into a ​ river. ​ The father had never been violent in the past. ​ It was discovered that the father had a cerebral tumour, which could explain the violence. DECISION: Not Guilty Serial Killers TYPES OF KILLERS: A serial killer is someone who commits three or more murders over an extended period of time, with cooling-off periods in between. In between their crimes, they appear to be quite normal, a state which Hervey Cleckley and Robert Hare call the “mask of sanity.” There is frequently — but not always — a sexual element to the murders. A mass murderer, on the other hand, is an individual who kills three or more people in a single event and in one location. The perpetrators sometimes commit suicide, meaning knowledge of their state of mind and what triggers their actions is often left to more speculation than fact. Mass murderers who are caught sometimes claim they cannot clearly remember the event. In 20 minutes, these two students killed 13 people and injured 24 more. (Columbine) A spree killer commits multiple murders in different locations over a period of time that may vary from a few hours to several days. Unlike serial killers, however, they do not revert to their normal behaviour in between slayings. Canada's Worst Killing Spree On April 18-19, 2020, Gabriel Wortman committed multiple shootings and set fires at 16 locations in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, killing 22 people and injuring three others before he was shot and killed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Enfield. Thrill Seekers: See outsmarting law enforcement as a game, enjoy media attention, police pursuit, and evading the authorities. They send messages and keep records. Mission Oriented: Feel they are doing society a favour by eliminating certain people like prostitutes. Kristen Gilbert was an “Angel of Death” murderer. She would induce heart attacks in her patients, only to revive them. Power and Control: Enjoy the victim's terror, suffering, and screaming. MOMENTOS: Souvenirs & Serial Killers: Serial killers often keep mementos of their victims ​ Robert Keppel places these collections into 2 categories: souvenirs and trophies. ​ Souvenirs: Personal items allow the killer to enjoy the memories of the crime. ​ A trophy, can become something of a shrine MURDER CITY, Micheal Arntfield Evidence Voire Dire “to speak the truth” A mini-trial that takes place during a trial; jurors are excluded while the judge, the Crown, and the defence discuss the admissibility of evidence. Most of these occur before the trial begins, as both sides must have full access to evidence prior to the trial so they can fully examine it. Any type of evidence can be subjected to a voire dire. EYE-WITNESS TESTIMONY (DIRECT EVIDENCE) ​ Testimony given by a witness to prove an alleged fact. ​ This can include what they saw, what they heard, or anything they observed with their senses. ​ Ultimately, the jury will have to determine how much they want to believe them. ​ Any direct evidence can be challenged as memories fade over time, people can confuse facts, or a personal bias can be revealed. HEARSAY EVIDENCE IS NOT ALLOWED IN COURT. THAT IS ANY EVIDENCE GIVEN BY A THIRD PARTY! CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (INDIRECT EVIDENCE) This is evidence that leads to a reasonable inference that the suspect is guilty. This can include circumstantial testimony or forensic evidence. Physical forensic evidence can be classified as either: CLASS — footprints, tire prints, fibres, paint chips INDIVIDUAL — DNA, fingerprints, hair follicles, wear patterns The link between circumstantial evidence and the accused must be strong, or it will be inadmissible. ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE ​ Electronic recordings can be the best type of evidence, as it is accurate and impersonal. ​ It may include video surveillance, wiretapping or bugging. ​ Any evidence of this kind must be authorized by a warrant issued by a judge. ​ Polygraph Tests (or lie detectors) have been largely disregarded as reliable evidence as they must be administered properly, and they can be cheated. INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE? Illegally obtained evidence — evidence obtained without a warrant HOWEVER… Evidence collected in public can be used in court (ex. Garbage on a boulevard) Privileged Communications — your wife, doctor, lawyer or spiritual leader — cannot be forced to testify against you in court. HOWEVER… They must testify if it means they can help prevent future crimes. The Crown cannot bring up prior crimes in court to paint your client as a “bad character” HOWEVER… If you put your character on trial, by bringing forth character witnesses, the Crown can bring up prior crimes (Similar Fact evidence)