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

Criminal law - Essay ExampleHawthorne, as sh tout ensemble be seen. Discussing the Criminal Liability of Andrew Chances for Andrews criminal liability be very high. As previously stated, the Black Letter Law specifies the need to part actus reus and mens rea when determining criminal liability. As touching, mens rea, Andrew clearly has a criminal liability, since his psychological elements are voluntary, purposeful and in line with a criminal sprightliness. Facts that support or evidence Andrews criminal tendency are him wanting to eliminate carry through (which leads to and is made manifest by) him hiring a hit man to murder Mrs. swear out and him setting a ? 5,000 bounty on Sues head, as the hit mans reward. The aforementioned elements immediately above are serious and interrelate with one another. The idea of Andrew having a mental invention of getting rid of his wife Mrs. Sue, so that he could remain with Beth (the lady he is having extra-marital relations with), becomes self-evident, when he plans Mrs. Sues murder. This is further distressed when Andrew hires not just some(prenominal) murderer, but aseasoned hit man, John 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 supplying 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 rate from disorder. Andrews cognitive and mental orderliness is confirmed by the elaborate plan he crafted to have Mrs. Sue identified and eliminated. Again, this orderliness is confirmed by his attempts 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 state 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 drive 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 murderous 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 certainly answerable for first degree murder. The converse is also true that Andrew also is responsible, establish 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