Presentation on theme: "Case Analysis Summative CASE ANALYSIS – DEFENSE OF NECESSITY."— Presentation transcript:
Case Analysis Summative CASE ANALYSIS – DEFENSE OF NECESSITY
The Assignment Details… LEARNING GOAL: I will understand the concept of legal significance through the analysis of a legal case. SUCCESS CRITERIA: I will define legal terms like defense of necessity and murder I will identify facts relevant to the specific case studied. I will identify a clear legal issue. I will submit a clear, defined legal opinion on a specific case. I will support this decision by applying my knowledge of the law to the relevant facts of the case.
#1 FACTS: List the key facts from the case Use only the facts that will be relevant to answering the key issue in the case – be concise Make sure that the facts tell a logical story; the reader needs to understand the story told Proof-read your facts
#2 ISSUE: Identify the key legal problem that needs to be addressed in the case analysis Keep it to a single sentence unless there is a follow-up issue Write the issue in a question format Do not provide an answer
#3 DECISION: Answer the question asked in the issue, nothing else Keep your answer to a single sentence response Do not provide any reasons for your answer
#4 REASONING: This is the section where you explain your answer Your answer should be explained using two paragraphs The first paragraph explains all legal concepts covered in the case The first paragraph can use definitions to explain the legal concepts Your second paragraph will apply your understanding of the law to the facts of the case Make specific reference to the facts of the case This is the most extensive part of your case analysis, make it detailed and specific
You will need some legal background to do this case analysis…
Criminal Code Definition of Murder : The Criminal Code defines murder as killing someone where the killer meant to cause the person's death or meant to cause bodily harm that was likely to result in their death. There are two degrees of murder:
By The Vancouver Sun - December 10, 2007 First-degree murder is when the killing is " planned and deliberate." In other words, where the murder was premeditated. However, some killings that aren't premeditated are still automatically first-degree, such as the killing of a police officer or when the killing takes place during the commission of a hijacking, kidnapping or sexual assault. Those convicted of first-degree murder receive an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years. Second-degree murder is defined in the Code as all murders that are not first-degree but where the killing was still intentional. Generally speaking, it applies to those murders that are "spontaneous" and weren't planned in advance. For example, a husband who had no plans to kill his wife but, once they started fighting, meant to kill her. As with first-degree murder, those convicted of second-degree receive an automatic life sentence. However, the judge can set their parole eligibility at anywhere between 10 and 25 years. AND - Manslaughter is defined in the code as a culpable (means: guilty) homicide (means: killing) that is not murder -- in other words, where someone, such as a drunk driver, killed another person unintentionally. Someone can also be found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder if the killing was committed in the "heat of passion" as a result of a provocation that would cause an ordinary person to lose self-control. There is no mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter but the maximum penalty is life in prison.
Defense of Necessity: Almost all common-law and statutory definitions of the necessity defense include the following elements: (1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; (2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and (3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law. Some jurisdictions require in addition that the harm must have been imminent and that the action taken must have been reasonably expected to avoid the imminent danger. All these elements mirror the principles on which the defense of necessity was founded: first, that the highest social value is not always achieved by blind adherence to the law; second, that it is unjust to punish those who technically violate the letter of the law when they are acting to promote or achieve a higher social value than would be served by strict adherence to the law; and third, that it is in society's best interest to promote the greatest good and to encourage people to seek to achieve the greatest good, even if doing so necessitates a technical breach of the law. SOURCE: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved
Case: R. vs. The Three Little Pigs What are the facts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olo923T2HQ4 Write them down as you watch:
What is the Issue? What defense can the 3 Little Pigs Claim? Write it as a question.
What is your Decision? Answer your question in one sentence No explanation or reasoning needed
What is your Reasoning for your Decision? Explain your answer in two paragraphs: #1 - explain all legal concepts covered in the case - can use definitions to explain the legal concepts #2 - apply your understanding of the law to the facts of the case - make specific reference to the facts of the case This is the most extensive part of your case analysis, make it detailed and specific
Here’s what the finished product should be like: CASE ANALYSIS (EXAMPLE) R. VS. THE THREE LITTLE PIGS
FACTS: On July 4, 2001 the plaintiff otherwise known as the Big Bad Wolf threatened to kill the defendants, otherwise known as the Three Little Pigs The Big Bad Wolf first attacked the First Little Pig at his straw house where he huffed and he puffed and he blew the house down The First Little Pig escaped and ran to the Second Little Pig’s house to warn his brother At the Second Little Pig’s house, made of sticks, the Big Bad Wolf huffed and puffed and blew the house down Both Pigs escaped and made their way to the Third Little Pig’s house to warn him of an imminent attack by the Big Bad Wolf At the Third Little Pig’s house, the Big Bad Wolf huffed and puffed but as the house was made of bricks, the house did not collapse At this point the Big Bad Wolf attempted to enter the house through the chimney The Three Little Pigs set a pot of boiling water at the base of the fireplace When the Big Bad Wolf slid down the chimney he landed in the boiling water scalding 100% of his body He rushed to the hospital where he was treated in the Severe Burn Unit The Big Bad Wolf was listed in critical condition for three weeks before doctors were confident he would survive The Three Little Pigs were subsequently charged with attempted murder The Three Little Pigs claim they were acting in self defense
ISSUE: Should the defense of self-defense be accepted in this case? DECISION: Self-defense rejected, the Three Little Pigs are guilty of attempted murder
REASONING: Paragraph 1: The law defines attempted murder as an intentional action that is likely to cause death. This includes actions where there is no direct intent to cause death. This means that a person can be charged with attempted murder even if there was no desire to cause death. All that is required is the knowledge that the action could or is likely to cause death. Self-defense is defined as an action that is taken to defend oneself or another against a crime or likely harm. However the response must be a reasonable response to the threat. The threat must be imminent and the response is not valid if there was a more peaceful reasonable action possible.
REASONING: Paragraph 2: In the case of R. v. The Three Little Pigs, the Three Little Pigs were clearly facing a threat from the Big Bad Wolf. The Wolf’s intentions to cause harm to the Pigs were clear and the Pigs were entitled to defend themselves in a reasonable manner. However, the response was not a reasonable response. The Pigs clearly ignored other possible ways to protect themselves. As the house was strong enough to withstand the huffing and puffing of the wolf, the harm was not imminent. The Pigs had an opportunity to contact the local police from protection. As well, the Pigs could have easily escaped the house once the Wolf made his descent down the fireplace. Finally, another means instead of a boiling pot of water could have been used to trap and subdue the Wolf. Instead of taking these actions, the Pigs clearly chose a response they knew was likely to cause severe harm and possible death to the Wolf. The defense of self-defense is rejected in this case.
Just for FUN Commercial featuring the guilty 3 Little Pigs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDGrfhJH1P4 The Perspective of the Big Bad Wolf… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcsUfYBHhm4
Now it’s your turn… CASE: The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens Remember your success criteria…