Criminal law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

reprehensible equity - Essay ExampleHawthorne, as shall be seen. Discussing the Criminal Liability of Andrew Chances for Andrews criminal liability atomic number 18 very high. As previously stated, the Black earn Law specifies the need to factor actus reus and mens rea when determining criminal liability. As touching, mens rea, Andrew clearly has a criminal liability, since his amiable elements are voluntary, purposeful and in line with a criminal intent. Facts that support or evidence Andrews criminal intent are him wanting to eliminate sue (which leads to and is made manifest by) him hiring a pip man to murder Mrs. Sue and him setting a ? 5,000 bounty on Sues head, as the hit mans reward. The aforementi onenessd elements immediately above are serious and interrelate with one another(prenominal). The idea of Andrew having a mental intent of getting rid of his wife Mrs. Sue, so that he could catch ones breath with Beth (the lady he is having extra-marital relations with), bec omes self-evident, when he contrives Mrs. Sues murder. This is further stressed when Andrew hires not skillful any murderer, but aseasoned hit man, canful to fatally shoot Mrs. Sue. This shows Andrews commitment to arranging for Sues murder. Andrews intent to have Sue murdered is also evidenced by him give John with a gun, for the same purpose. Again, the same intent is made manifest in Andrew helping John identify Mrs. Sue, her car and where Mrs. Sue works. All these show that Andrews actions are previously thought. In a closely related wavelength, all actions that Andrew carries out readily and indisputably render him compos mentis. According to Dioso-Villa1, to argue otherwise in an attempt to render him non-compos mentis and to therefore insinuate that there can proceed, sustainable order from disorder. Andrews cognitive and mental orderliness is confirmed by the elaborate plan he crafted to have Mrs. Sue identify and eliminated. Again, this orderliness is confirmed by his a ttempts to keep the plan as discreet as possible. Even when he discovers that his son Tim has been mistakenly murdered in place of Mrs. Sue, he does not report the matter to law enforcement authorities. This shows that Andrew knew very well that his acts are criminal and thus preferred to steer clear of polices involvement. In another instance, Andrews mental intent to commit the crime of murder is confirmed by him driving himself up to their house, to kill Sue, by himself. It is clear that Andrews criminal intent is the very factor that made him to political campaign to their home. He does this after realising that his previous plan to murder Sue had fatefully backfired. He then willfully opens up an argument with Sue to provoke an argument, so that he can be enraged into murdering Sue. This plan becomes successful. In respect to the immediately foregoing, the previous planning by Andrew rules out any chances for considering Andrews homicidal acts as second or/ and third degree. Moreover, Andrews act of repeatedly stabbing Mrs. Sue speaks of a mental criminal intent and rules out third or second degree murder.This is to mean that Andrew is surely answerable for first degree murder. The converse is also true that Andrew also is responsible, based on his actions (actus rea).Indeed, Andrew performs actions that are criminal in nature, or before the law. Andrew hires the services of an experienced hit man (John), for the