Grade 12 Law Exam Review PDF

Defining a Crime ​ Crime ○​ A crime is an act or omission of an act that is prohibited and punishable by federal statute law ○​ “Omission of an act” means that some crimes are not acts in the strict sense, but rather the failure to act in certain situations ​ Break...

Defining a Crime ​ Crime ○​ A crime is an act or omission of an act that is prohibited and punishable by federal statute law ○​ “Omission of an act” means that some crimes are not acts in the strict sense, but rather the failure to act in certain situations ​ Breaking and entering is a specific intent (act) ​ Neglect - omission ​ Impaired driving - act ​ Assault - act ​ Conditions ○​ 4 conditions must exist for an act or omission to be considered a crime ​ The act must be regarded as wrong by society ​ The act causes harm to society in general or those who need protection (e.g. minors) ​ The harm must be serious ​ The remedy must be handled by the criminal justice system ​ Criminal Law ○​ A crime is considered to be an offence not just against the direct victim, but against society as a whole ○​ E.g. when a pair of Beats headphones is stolen from a family-run electronics store, not only is the store owner affected but society as well in that the price of headphones may have to be driven up ○​ It is the government’s responsibility to investigate and act against people who commit crimes ○​ Criminal law is the body of laws that prohibit and punish acts that injure individual people, property, and the entire community ​ Purpose of Criminal Law ○​ There are 3 main purposes of criminal law ​ To protect people and property ​ To maintain order ​ To preserve standards of public decency ​ Process ○​ Investigate ○​ Charge Assessment ○​ Prosecution ○​ Sentences ○​ Appeals ​ The Criminal Code ○​ The Criminal Code of Canada is a federal statute that contains the majority of criminal laws passed by the Parliament ​ Meant to reflect the social values of the majority of Canadians ○​ Passed as a statute in 1892 ○​ The Criminal Code lists ​ Offences ​ Sentences to be imposed ​ Procedures to follow when trying the accused  ​ Judges Decisions ○​ Judges interpret laws from the criminal code ○​ They can also set new limits and create additions to existing laws ​ E.g. Lavallee (Defence of Battered Women’s Syndrome) Criminal Law Reading Homework Page 235 1.​ Name and describe two purposes of the criminal law ​ Retribution ○​ Public denouncing and punishing of wrongful behaviour ○​ Reaffirm social values and deliver “justice” ​ Protection of society ○​ Deterring future wrongdoing by rehabilitating wrongdoers ○​ Public security and the prevention of crime 2.​ Can you think of any situations where these purposes might conflict? In the event of a conflict which purpose should be given priority? Why? ​ A person who commits fraud might be incarcerated primarily to satisfy the societal demand for justice. Protecting society may not need incarceration, but public opinion might demand punishment to reaffirm social values. ​ Retribution should be prioritized as this prioritization ensures public confidence in the criminal justice system to maintain morals and ethics. Page 236 1.​ Describe the differing rates of victimization for young people and for seniors. Can you suggest reasons for the difference, using facts derived from the Statistics Canada survey? ​ 25% of Canadians aged 15 or older reported they were victimized in 1999 and 23% during 1993 ​ Young persons were 21 times more likely to be victims of violent crimes than seniors ​ Younger individuals are more likely to engage in social activities outside their homes while older adults tend to lead quieter, more home-centered lifestyles and are less likely to frequent high-risk environments ​ Adolescents and young adults often take more risks, such as walking alone late at night, experimenting with alcohol or drugs, or associating with potentially risky peer groups ​ Younger individuals are generally physically stronger and may feel more confident in risky situations 2.​ Did reading the statistics change your ideas about your personal safety strategies? Explain your answer. ​ Reading these statistics changed my ideas of personal safety strategies because I am at an age where I check off all the reasons why young people are often victimized ​ Being aware of the environments ​ Even though younger individuals might feel confident due to their physical strength, overconfidence can lead to underestimating threats Actus Reus and Mens Rea ​ Because crimes are moral wrongs, people can only be convicted of a criminal act (or omission) if they have a guilty mind ​ As such, the Crown Prosecutor must prove 2 elements of a crime: the guilty act (actus reus) and the guilty mind (mens rea) ​ Actus Reus: Guilty Act ○​ The actus reus of a Criminal Code offence is the act or omission ​ E.g. failure to act ○​ It is often easy to identify the actus reus of a crime ​ E.g. s.222(1) of the Code provides that “a person commits homicide when, directly, or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being” – The actus reus of homicide is causing the death of a human being ​ Mens Rea - Guilty Mind ○​ The mens rea of a crime can be ​ The intention to do the guilty act (planning the murder of another person) ​ Recklessness causing the guilty act (120 km in a 50 km zone, resulting in the death of another person) ​ Having knowledge of a guilty act (living in a home with someone and having furniture that is the result of the proceeds from the person’s drug trafficking) ​ Intention - a person intends to commit the actus reus ​ Wilful Blindness - a person knows of the possibility of illegality but chooses not to ask questions or investigate the situation ​ Criminal Negligence - while this person did not realize the consequences of her or his actions, a reasonable person should have Levels of Offences ​ Absolute Liability ○​ For this offence, you must show that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that you committed the offence ​ Strict Liability ○​ A strict liability offence means that the onus of responsibility lies with the accused ○​ They must prove that he/she took every action that a reasonable person would take to prevent an offence from happening ○​ “Due diligence” defence ○​ E.g. Failure to remain at the scene of the accident ​ Intro ○​ Not all crimes are treated alike ○​ Depends on the seriousness ○​ Thus we must judge them differently based on severity and circumstances ​ Summary Convictions ○​ Is a minor offence ○​ Lower penalty ○​ 6 months in prison or a $2000 fine ○​ Quick court appearance ○​ No jury ○​ Criminal record ​ Indictable Offences ○​ More serious crimes  ○​ Heavy penalty ○​ 2 years in prison - life ○​ Sets minimum sentences for specific crimes ○​ Could wait years for a proper trial ○​ Less than 5 years - judge ○​ More than 5 years - judges + jury ​ Hybrid Offences ○​ Crown decides between summary and indictable ○​ It always starts as indictable but crown can change to summary if they see fit ○​ Base it on circumstances in which it is committed ○​ Stealing candy for no reason vs. stealing bread to feed a starving family Crime Scene Investigation ​ Crime ○​ Police cannot arrest just anyone they suspect of committing a criminal offence ○​ They must have some proof that an offence has been committed and that the person they wish to arrest was the offender ○​ Reasonable grounds means that based on the information available, a reasonable person would conclude that the suspect has committed a criminal offence ​ Chain of Events ○​ Each moment in the chain of events from crime to trial is subject to the laws of criminal procedure ○​ These laws balance two sometimes conflicting objectives ​ To discover the truth about a criminal event ​ To protect civil liberties ​ Evidence ○​ Police must investigate crime scenes and collect and secure evidence - any mistakes made by investigating officers may jeopardize the trial process later on ○​ A crime scene contains physical evidence (any object, impression, or body element that can be used to prove/disprove facts relating to a criminal offence) ○​ Therefore it is crucial that the scene be secured so that evidence is not lost or tampered with ​ Officer Roles ○​ The first officers at the crime scene are responsible for: ​ Arresting suspects ​ Assisting the injured ​ Eliminating potential risks/dangers, and ​ Determining the boundaries of a crime scene ​ Coroner ○​ When a crime scene may safely be removed from police control is made by the officer in charge, unless the incident involves a death ○​ This responsibility belongs to the coroner - a coroner is a public official responsible for investigating violent, suspicious, or accidental deaths, and for certifying deaths that occur outside of a hospital ​ Collection of Evidence  ○​ Once the crime scene has been secured, the focus of the police investigation moves to the collection of physical evidence - some physical evidence is easy to spot ​ E.g. knife ○​ Other physical evidence required detection, collection, and interpretation by experts ​ E.g. fingerprints ​ Chain of custody ○​ Police also have procedures for the handling and storage of evidence - these are meant to protect and continuity of evidence ​ Continuous chain of possession designed to ensure the safekeeping of evidence Types of Evidence ​ Direct Evidence ○​ Testimony given by a witness to prove an alleged fact ○​ The most common type of direct evidence is eyewitness testimony ○​ This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence a Crown attorney can have ○​ E.g. Nina was Ed stealing Julie’s purse ○​ Good Witnesses ​ Confidence ​ Consistent ​ Credibility ​ Remembers specific details ○​ Bad Witnesses ​ Criminal record ​ Constant changing story ​ Bias ​ Close relationship to accused ​ Are there in any way being rewarded for their testimony ​ Circumstantial Evidence ○​ Indirect evidence that leads to a reasonable interference of the defendant’s guilt ○​ Often used when no eyewitness testimony is available ○​ E.g. Nobody saw Ed steal Julie’s purse, but his fingerprints were on it and someone saw him near the scene ​ Character Evidence ○​ Evidence used to establish the likelihood that the defendant is the type of person who either would or would not commit a certain offence ○​ The Crown cannot introduce evidence of “bad character” ○​ They can only rebit defence testimony of good character ​ Electronic Surveillance ○​ The use of any electronic device to overhear or record communications between two or more people ​ E.g. wiretapping or bugging ○​ Video camera surveillance ○​ Cell phone tower pings  ○​ In order for this type of evidence to be admissible in court, the use of electronic surveillance must have been authorized by a warrant ​ Polygraph Tests ○​ Use of a polygraph which is a machine that allows a skilled examiner to detect physical signs that indicate deception ○​ Because they are less than 100% accurate, the results of a polygraph test are not admissible as evidence ​ Physical Evidence ○​ Items found at or around the criminal scene ​ Weapon ​ Blood ​ Fingerprints ​ Hair ​ Skin ​ Semen ​ Saliva Criminal Trial Process ​ Role of a Criminal Trial ○​ The criminal trial is essential because our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence meaning that an accused person is “innocent until proven guilty” ○​ A full trial consists of the accused, the victim, opposing lawyers (Crown and Defence), the jury and the judge ○​ Full trials are very rare in Canada ​ 80% of all criminal charges are dealt with by way of guilty pleas ​ Accused is arraigned ○​ The accused is formally read charges ○​ The accused is then expecting to enter a plea: Guilty or Not Guilty ​ Jury is selected ○​ People who are charged with certain serious indictable offences have the option of trial before a judge and jury ​ At the end of the case, the judge instructed the jury about the law, and the jury retired to make its decision ○​ The judge addressed jurors, asking them to appoint a foreperson ​ Crown Presents Opening Statement ○​ Introduce yourself and another lawyer ​ Hello, my name is Carr, first initial M, and my fellow lawyer… ○​ Brief description of the case ​ We are here to talk about ○​ Outline witnesses and what you expect them to say ○​ Close ​ By the end of the trial, we will prove… ​ Direct Examination of Witness  ○​ Witnesses are people who are questioned by lawyers as to their knowledge or involvement in a case ○​ A direct examination is when a crown or defence questions their own witness ○​ The goal of a direct examination is to create questions which will allow the witness to tell a story, which benefits your own case ○​ These may only be questions and you can not lead the witness ​ Cross-Examination ○​ Questioning the other side's witness after direct examination ○​ The goal is to poke holes or discredit the witness and their story in front of the court ○​ In cross-examination, you can ask leading questions which usually warrant a yes or no answer ​ Defence Presents Opening Statement ○​ After the crown has presented all its evidence it closes its case ○​ The defence then has the opportunity to call their witnesses or rest ○​ Defences often use a defence to a crime, meaning they outline a specific denial of, or a justification for, criminal behaviour ​ Closing Arguments ○​ If the defence calls their witness then they will present their closing statement first ○​ If the defence calls no witnesses then the crown presents its closing statement first ​ Closing Statement ○​ Reiterate stance on trial ○​ Outline what you proved ○​ Go over each witness and explain what they said and how that proves your case ○​ You can only mention things that were actually discussed in the trial ○​ Closing statement ​ Jury ○​ 12 people ○​ Listen and observe information, with the goal of making an informed decision ○​ Qualifications ​ Canadian Citizen ​ 18+ ​ Resident of the province of the trial for at least one year ​ Unlikely to be part of the jury: ​ Elected officials, lawyers, police officers, teachers, doctors, firefighters ​ Ways to get out ​ Religious, health, previous engagements, etc ○​ Guilty or Not Guilty ​ Only the judge can choose the sentencing ​ Jury Selection ○​ Jury Panel is called from polling lists ○​ Jurors are then questioned to determine whether they will be excused or serve during the case  Defences for the Accused ​ Defence ○​ A denial of, or a justification for, criminal behaviour ​ Review Two Elements of a Crime ○​ Actus Reus: The Guilty Act ○​ Mens Reus: The Guilty Mind ​ Types of Defences ○​ Negativing defence: raises a reasonable doubt about whether the accused committed the actus reus of an offence, or had the necessary mens rea to support a conviction ○​ These defences attempt to negate (discredit) an essential element in the Crown’s defence ○​ Most are focused on Denial - “I did not do it!” or “Someone else did” ​ Mistake of Fact ○​ An accused person who is mistaken/unaware of the factual context in which an alleged offence was committed ○​ No Mens Rea ○​ E.g. buying merchandise from a flea market, and not knowing it had been stolen or “fallen off the back of a truck” ​ Double Jeopardy ○​ One cannot be tried for the same offence twice ○​ E.g. Someone who is convicted of Manslaughter cannot be retried for another crime, like 1st-degree murder, if new evidence is found ○​ E.g. Barbie and Ken Killers: Karla and Homolka ​ Alibi ○​ Used when accused claims that they were somewhere else when the crime was committed ○​ E.g. You were at a part on the other side of town when the crime was committed and many people can place you at the party at the time in question ​ Entrapment ○​ Argument that the police illegally induced the defendant to commit a crime ○​ E.g. If an undercover police officer dressed as a prostitute approaches someone and offers their services, the accused could argue they only bought the services because they were asked ​ Mental States ○​ The defence of mental disorder attempts to claim that the accused did not understand the severity of the act due to a “disease of the mind” ​ No mens rea ○​ Must prove mental illness ○​ Formerly called insanity plea ○​ E,g, Shoppers Drug Mart Murder - “She was incapable of knowing the killed was morally and legally wrong” ​ Automatism  ○​ A state of impaired consciousness…in which an individual has no voluntary control over their actions ○​ Including stroke, hypoglycemia, concussion, and sleepwalking ○​ Impairment needs to be proven for defence to be accepted ○​ E.g. Kenneth Parks ​ Intoxication ○​ Uses evidence of intoxication to establish that the accused did not possess the specific intent of Men’s Rea to commit the crime ○​ E.g. An intoxicated person entering the wrong house on their street might not be charged with break and enter ​ Affirmative Defence/Justifications ○​ Admits to committing the actus reus and mens rea, but claims that the accused’s criminal act was justified by the circumstances or that the criminal conduct was the only reasonable option ​ Self-Defence ○​ Provides a justification for the use of force in certain situations - these include defending oneself against an assault and defending one’s property against trespass ○​ E.g. Someone breaks into your home and approaches you with a weapon ​ Allowed to use reasonable force to protect yourself ​ Compulsion ○​ Excuses individuals whose criminal conduct is compelled by threats and who have no realistic choice but to commit a criminal offence ○​ E.g. being forced to commit a crime while the gun is held to the head ○​ E.g. Luring someone to a place to be robbed. ​ Provocation ○​ Is an act or insult that causes a reasonable person to lose self-control ○​ Only used when attempting to have a murder charge downgraded to manslaughter ○​ E.g. A man tells his wife that she is a terrible parent and that he is going to take his kids away from her and never bring them back. In a fit of rage, she grabs a knife from the kitchen and stabs him to death