Assignment #3 -- Voodoo Case

D. Swisher

Assignment #3

1. Under this definition, can Victor be convicted of attempted murder?

MPC code 5.01 (1) may be misleading in some way as it identifies Attempt under (A, B and C) to be a: … conduct… in which, he believes it to be the cause of the crime.  

But according to MPC 5.02 (2), it states that: If the particular conduct charged to constitute a criminal attempt... is so inherently unlikely to result or culminate in the commission of a crime that neither such conduct nor the actor presents a public danger...the court shall exercise its power [and] impose a sentence for a crime of a lower grade or degree or, in extreme cases, may dismiss the prosecution.

Therefore, I believe that Victor’s case will be dismissed, as there is no actual evidence that Voodoo was the cause for his wife’s death.

But if for some odd reason, the court decides that Victor may have been responsible for murdering his wife, he will then be given a lesser punishment, because it cannot be proven that Voodoo was the cause of his wife death, but they can only base themselves on: 5.01 (1C) which states: “Purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.”

2. How would Kadish analyze this case?

Kadish, most likely believe that Victor should be charged with murder despite what the law says, because, Victor believed he was the cause for the murder of his wife; and that alone is reason enough.

Even though previous analyses in the book does not give similar samples to Victor’s case, many people can determine a different result for his case based on personal believes.

3. What is Kadish’s criticism of the “harm doctrine” and how does it apply to this case?

Based on the People Vs, Dlugash,  Kadish would most likely disagree that Dlugash should receive a lesser punishment, as attempted murder, instead of murder. 

Kadish believed that [Unsuccessful attempts to commit crimes, for example, seem, under this doctrine to give defendants a “reward” for failure. Kadish thinks that the doctrine of imposing a lesser punishment where no harm is done neither serves the purpose of the law nor is justified by moral principle.] (D. M. Adams, 4^th Ed. , pg. 390)

In this case, Kadish would most likely argue that Victor, had premeditations, and that he believed that he would be able to commit the crime. The “Harm Doctrine” serves as loop hole in order to “find an answer” to unexplainable questions/dilemmas, in which many times, there are no proof to base a decision in court. Therefore, it gives the court a final say, which can be an advantage/disadvantage to whoever committed a crime.

4. According to Kadish, why do we still have the “harm doctrine”?

Kadish would most likely state that “laws” such in the “harm doctrine” are meant to keep control on people and jail population. Of course, this would most likely benefit a few. This gives lawmakers and those who carry out the law, ample space to determine the outcome of a case.

Case 2A: Peterman/Defense

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, my client, Mr. Peterman, is a man who has never been involved in a crime, but recently, he was a victim of a crude entrapment conducted by the XX Police Department; and charged with the use of child pornography.

I am here today to speak for my client Mr. Peterman and in hopes that you understand the great injustice done. Mr. Peterman, like some Americans, uses the World Wide Web (WWW) for specific uses, such as Pornographic sites.  But, he was recently lured into committing illegal acts, when, Ms. Female Acquaintance, invited my client to visit her home, stating she would give my client Mr. Peterman access to the girl if he would come to her residence.  Yes, honorable Jury, my client, Mr. Peterman did go and arrived with several photographs and a variety of sex toys.  

Nevertheless, XX Police lures my client and arrested him for a crime that was never committed. My client carried with him pictures of what it was classified by the XX Police as Child Pornography, but in fact he was bringing it to Ms. Female Acquaintance to try to figure out on how to stop the spam emails he gradually receives from different websites.

Honorable Jury as you may had be aware prior to sitting here and taking the job as jury, you must had been informed of Actus Reus and Mens Rea.  In order to find a person guilty of a crime, under US Criminal law, in most cases, both Actus Rea (action) and Mens Rea (intent) has to be present in order to consider this a crime.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, let me assure you, that Actus reus, was missing.  The physical action of a crime was not present, because it was never committed, because my client was framed.  The US Government is continuously attacking people, such as Mr. Peterman and by ruining their reputation by posing charges such as child pornography.  The government failed to look at a bigger picture, by going after those who, produce child pornography, instead of those who posses child pornography. 

HmWrk #1 Qt#: 3

Question 3 Assignment 1

3.   What would a utilitarian philosopher argue, and what would a deontological philosopher, such as Kant, say? (For the ethical theories, see p. 7-14)

For the utilitarian, two issues arise: how to win the debate with the deontologist and which 15 people would bring the greatest utility. For the first issue, no person is absolutely innocent by any standard. There is always bound to be the one person who has done some questionable act. Presumably, the captain of the ship was already aware that there was not adequate food and water for the crew even if there wasn't a storm coming. His probable inaction or deliberate oversight is immoral therefore removes his innocence. Therefore his death in any form is not immoral and the whole group dynamic of innocence is invalid since one person is not innocent. The deontologist can't choose either of their option due to this. In the selection of 15 people, the captain would have to choose which 15 people will increase the odds of survival and in which the decision would be at the captains’ discretion.

The deontological philosopher on the other hand would not worry about it, Kant in particular under his categorical imperative, would have the captain kill himself due to the gravity of the situation at hand. The captain would not be able to make a decision that would help all the people with killing, therefore he will leave the decision in the hands of the crew. The crew already familiar with his leadership will always refere to him as a person of power even though they forfeited it.  Any decision that would be made would be somewhat influenced by him. Therefore, removing himself by killing himself, the captain would give a more complete sense of power to whoever is in charge. Ideally, the next captain in realization of this immensity of the decision at hand would come to the same conclusion the captain did. Under the categorical imperative, the next person in power would kill themselves as well since it is how the captain acted. Ideally, this process would continue until there is 15 people left since at that point there situation changes and everyone can survive. I reiterate, this is under the categorical imperative.

"Life Boat" 3/10/13

Assignment #1

"Overcrowded Life Boat"

(1) Do you think that the defendants in this case are guilty of murder or were they justified in their action? why or why not?

I believe that the first mate and the 2-crew members are not guilty and should not be charged with murder.  The first mate did what he needed to do in order to save the lives of the other 23 people, including him.  He found the need to keep his 2-crew members and rescue the lives of the strong young man in order to save the lives of the rest on board. He believed by rescuing the young men, would provide extra help in order to row the boat until found, seeing that the elderly onboard would not last nearly as long if placed to do labor in such poor conditions.
Many would argue that the first mate should had given away his seat on the lifeboat and allowed another life to be safe. But if we really think about this; without the first mate to guide/navigate the lifeboat the chances for survival/rescue would had been less/fatal. The people rescued, including the 2 crew members, are currently alive because of the first mate's strong leadership, leading everyone on the lifeboat to safety, by heading towards the main route in hopes to be found.

(2) Do you think that the actions of the crew were morally right? why or why not?

The 2-crew members had an option, whether to follow the first mate's order or to go against him, by refusing to obey his orders.  Unfortunately decisions have to be made in desperate moments, and they did. They chose to obey their first mate, realizing that the lifeboat could only support 24 people including themselves. The risk of allowing more people on board will reduce their chances of survival and increase the risk of sinking and loosing everyone on board. 
Morality in total has a vague definition, and is more selfishly guided. If they would have done the moral thing: as to rescue the lives of the other 5, they would then risk killing everyone on board. So, by choosing to risk the lives of those 5, would that make them immoral in the eyes of society? There are daily decisions made in everyone's life, either chosen by one or chosen by others, therefore there are always consequences to our actions. In this case, the ends justify the means, the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few.  If their actions would had been based on deintoligical theories, most likely we would be reading an article stating: "29 Found Dead: A first mate, was foolish enough to overcrowd a lifeboat risking the life of 24, instead of 6."