Diana Swisher
4/7/13
Assignment #4
“Wendigo” Case
Part I
Make your case as
prosecutor – argue in terms that the defendant is responsible for his act even
given the circumstances.
CASE:
A Native American in Northern Canada is
charged with manslaughter for
killing what he took to be an evil sprit
clothed in human form, called a “Wendigo;”
in his tribe a Wendigo is believed to eat human
beings.
The defendant saw what appeared to be a tall
human form running in the distance,
gave chase, challenged the victim, and then
fired.
REVISED on: 4/8/13
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL (DISREGARD) Posted on 4/7/13
It is true that people ought to respect other persons’ religion, that is not in stake here. The accused, presently here is charged with manslaughter for killing a man. The reasons the accused provided to the court are as follow, he claimed:
It is true that people ought to
respect other persons’ religion, that is not in stake here. The accused,
presently here is charged with manslaughter for killing a man. The reasons the
accused provided to the court are as follow, he claimed:
He tried to kill an evil spirit
“Wendigo” clothed in human form,
believed by his
tribe to eat human beings.
Now, according to the accused, this
“Wendigo” has killed and eaten humans, and felt the need to kill “it”, and
pursued the victim with a gun, shot him and killed him\
It seems that the accused had previously
predicted the event and Intent to
take matters into his own hand.
The victim was nowhere near the
accused, or approaching the accused.
The victim had no previous contact with the accused, prior to the
incident. This shows that the
accused had both: Actus reus and mens
rea.
Who is to say that this man would
not use the same excuse, sometime down the road? Are we to allow such person to
walk our streets free and wait for another “Wendigo” to die due to this man‘s
actions?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL (DISREGARD) Posted on 4/7/13
It is true that people ought to respect other persons’ religion, that is not in stake here. The accused, presently here is charged with manslaughter for killing a man. The reasons the accused provided to the court are as follow, he claimed:
He tried to kill an evil spirit
“Wendigo” clothed in human form,
believed by his
tribe to eat human beings.
Now, according to the accused
religion/believes states that, anyone who observes/sees a “Wendigo” should/must
kill “it”. But instead, the
accused feared this being, and took it upon him to kill “it”, with a gun.
It seems that the accused had previously
predicted the event and Intent to
take matters into his own hand.
The victim was nowhere near the
accused, or approaching the accused.
The victim had no previous contact with the accused, prior to the
incident. This shows that the
accused had both: Actus reus and mens
rea.
Who is to say that this man would
not use the same excuse, sometime down the road? Are we to allow such person to
walk our streets free and wait for another “Wendigo” to die due to this man‘s actions?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey Diana, I'm posting early!
ReplyDeleteI like how you've decided to prosecute using the premise of intent and action. It's a strong argument because in this "Wendigo" case, the defendant clearly shows both these things. The consequence is the victims death. However, to debate the act and intent of this case seems unnecessary because it is self-evident. Instead, I would argue on terms of justification to see whether the defendant is excused for his actions or not.
I sympathize with your comment that "are we to allow such person to walk our streets free and wait for another "Wendigo" to die...". Given that I do not know another Wendigo case prior to this one- I consider this to be a novel, and new scenario; one that can further the interest and beliefs of the tribe. If the victim was truly a Wendigo- the defendant can be considered a courageous man. We believe, as non-tribesman, that this belief is false and dangerous. I would recommend that a just punishment is education, and reflection of belief rather than conviction and punishment.
He felt his life was at stake, he was in survival mode. Yes he gave chase but if you put your self in his position, would you let this beast get away? Knowing in your heart he is a cannibal and other possible people he can hurt. He did not know it was a regular man, other wise he would of never made his choice of the persue. There is no denying what this man did but he is not vicious killer. He did not kill another human being with the '' Malice'' factor. As he became the perpetrator once he gave chance he did not do this with malicious intentions, instead with the hope to save future lives. If we agree with him or not, this was his truth and what he really believed.
ReplyDeleteNice point, Diana, to show that both actus reus and mens rea are present. You got some good comments from both Danny and Jairo. Danny argues that in the defendant’s mind he acted in self defense and defense of others, and Jairo argues that for that reason he lack malice. Both Danny and Jairo could have said that the mens rea element you mention, Diana, can be interpreted differently if we consider the defendant’s viewpoint.
ReplyDelete