Topics Essay Example for Free

Topics Essay1. Consider this situationAlf and shilling conveyed a motel agency. The room was rented on a lower floor Alfs name, and Alf paid for the first days rent the second days rent was paid by Bob, and the third days rent was non paid. The motel manager, finding the appearance of his guests mirthful (long hair, colorful clothes, general air of disreputability), informed the police that he suspected them of being drug-users. The police raided the motel room on the third day and discovered Alf ( that not Bob) asleep, and found considerable quantities of drugs and drug paraphernalia disperse about the room. They arrested Alf. Alf said that the drugs did not belong to him but to Bob (who was nowhere to be found), and that although he knew that Bob possessed and used marijuana, he himself never did. Alf was prosecuted for illegal possession of drugs (which happens to be a criminal offence).The indecision waterfall into triple parts. Answer all of them.a) If you were pro secuting Alf, what blood lines would you use to convince the court that the act-requirement had been satisfied in this compositors case? b) If you were defending Alf, what arguments would you use to convince the court that the act-requirement had not been satisfied in this case? c) If you were the judge, what would your decision be regarding this issue? Give reasons for your answer.2. Consider this situationCharlie is drowning in a swimming-pool. Standing around him, not doing anything to bringing him, are the following persons, all of whom are strong swimmers (i) Derek, who is the lifeguard on duty, (ii) Edwin, who is Charlies twin brother, (iii) Frederick, who is an off-duty policeman, (iv) Gavin, who had stumbled upon Charlies untied shoelaces, and, in trying to keep himself from falling, accidentally pushed Charlie into the pool and, (v) Harvey, a man who had long mean to kill Charlie, who happened to be passing by the pool when he saw Charlie drowning, and stopped to watch. The question falls into two parts. Answer both of them.a) Which of these five witnesses to Charlies death should be held criminally liable for failing to rescue Charlie and which of them should not? Provide reasons to justify your answer. b) Would it make any difference to your answer if Charlie happened to a paraplegic confined to a wheelchair? If so, why, and if not, why not?3. Consider this situationIrvin and his girlfriend Jennie get drunk in their apartment and begin to quarrel. Jennie threatens to beat Irvin on the head repeatedly with a heavy cast-iron saucepan. Irvin, learned that Jennie is fully capable of doing this, flees from his apartment and into the street. A policeman finds him running down the street screaming, and takes him into custody. Irvin is prosecuted for being drunk and disorderly in a public place, which happens to be a criminal offence.The question falls into three parts.a) If you were prosecuting Irvin, what argument would you use to convince the court that the voluntariness component of the act-requirement had been satisfied in this case? b) If you were defending Irvin, what argument would you use to convince the court that the voluntariness component of the act-requirement had not been satisfied in this case? c) If you were the judge, what would your decision be regarding this issue? Give reasons for your answer.4. Kelly is a clinically diagnosed alcoholic and becomes pregnant due to a flaw in a contraceptive doohickey. She does not refrain from consuming alcohol during her pregnancy, and her child, Larry, is born with severe mental backwardness due to fetal alcohol syndrome. Kelly is prosecuted for having caused grievous bodily harm to Larry.Assume that mental retardation does in fact constitute grievous bodily harm, and that Larrys mental retardation was in fact caused by Kellys consumption of alcohol during her pregnancy. The defence nevertheless argues, on behalf of Kelly, that (i) alcoholism is not an act but a condition , (ii) Kellys consumption of alcohol during her pregnancy was not voluntary because Kelly was an alcoholic (iii) pregnancy is not an act but a condition, and (iv) Kellys pregnancy was not voluntary because Kellys contraceptive device malfunctioned. Therefore, says the defence, Kelly has not satisfied the act-requirement for a crime in this case.