Strict liability and mens rea Essay Example for Free

Strict liability and mens rea Essay So the offences of strict liability, we can say, are those crimes which do not require mens rea with regard to at least one or more elements of the actus reus. In R Vs Storkwain (9) the defendant supplied drugs for which a prescription was required, after being handed a forged prescription. There was no evidence of any negligence or wrong doing on the part of the pharmacist.. On appeal against conviction, it was held that the statute created an offence of strict liability; therefore no proof of mens rea was required. In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd vs Attorney-General for Hong Kong (10) following points has been laid down to determine the circumstances to which strict liability to be imposed. (1) There is a presumption of law that mens rea is required before a person can be held guilty of a criminal offence; 8. Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 841 A. 2d 1000 (Pa. 2003) 9. R Vs Storkwain (1986) 10. Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General for Hong Kong [1984] 2 All ER 503 Strict Liability 7 (2) The presumption is particularly strong where the offence is â€Å"truly criminal† in character; (3) The presumption applies to statutory offences, and can be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute; (4) The only situation in which the presumption can be displaced is where the statute is concerned with an issue of social concern; (5) Even where a statute is concerned with such an issue, the presumption of mens rea stands unless it can be shown that the creation of strict liability will be effective to promote the objects of the statute by encouraging greater vigilance to prevent the commission of the prohibited act. Essentials of strict liability For the application of this rule the following three essentials should be there: 1) Injury by a defective product: In order to succeed the strict liability under the law the plaintiff must show that the injury must be caused by a defective product whose defect existed at the time of injury and the product should be plaintiff’s control. In the recent case of Ceiba-Geigy (Pty) Ltd v Lushof Farms (Pty) Ltd en n Ander (11) it was held that the liability arising from the defective products not only related to the personal injury but financial loss also. It was further confirmed that when a manufacture undertakes or market the production without any prior tests and 11. Ceiba-Geigy (Pty) Ltd v Lushof Farms (Pty) Ltd en n Ander, 2002 (2) SA 447 (SCA) Strict Liability 8 consequently it turns hazardous to the consumer such negligent activities expose a liability to the consumer. Here a contractual nexus between the manufacturer and the consumer is not required. (Weir, Tony 2006), (12) 2) The goods must be dangerous or defective in nature: Here the plaintiff must show that due to the dangerous nature, such goods can not be used for the ordinary purpose or for some other reasonably foreseeable purpose. Thus, a manufacturer owes a duty to supply a product fit for the ordinary purposes and it is to be used and safe notwithstanding a reasonably foreseeable misuse that could cause injury. The decisions in famous cases like Batcheller Vs Tunbrige Wells Gas co. ,(13) National Telephone Co. Vs Baker (14)and West Vs Bristol Tramways Co. (15)manifests that the defective products are whatever in form ,whether it is gas, electricity noxious fumes ,the rule of strict liability can be applied. 3) The goods should leave the manufacturer: It is essential that the thing caused injury to the plaintiff must leave from the possession and control of eth defendant. So those defective goods are still with the manufacture is safe from the claim of compensation. In Read Vs Lyons (16) (text) the plaintiff was the employee in the defendant’s munitions factory. While performing her duty a shell was exploded and she was injured . Even -12. Weir,Tony,( 2006),an introduction to Tort law,2nd edn. , Oxford University Press 13. Batcheller Vs Tunbrige Wells Gas co. 84 L. T 765 14. National Telephone Co. Vs Baker (1893) 2 ch 186 15. West Vs Bristol Tramways Co. (1908) 2 K. B 14 16. Read Vs Lyons (1947) A. C 156, 161 Strict Liability 9 though the shell exploded was dangerous in nature it was held that defendants were not liable as the shell was not left from outside the defendant’s premises and the rule of strict liability could not be applied in this case. 4) Breach of warranty: Generally, the law imposes certain warranties (or guaranties) on the sale of products. Such warranties include that the goods are in proper condition for use and free of defects and that they are fit for a particular purpose. Since the court doesn’t disregard the liability of the waivers against the policy and the warranties are limited, the manufacturers and retailers are always held responsible for injuries from the defective and dangerous products. The aspect of breach of warrenty enables the plaintiff to act against the defendant with his complete freedom. Here he need not assert that the defendant is fault. Usually the product claims under the breach of warranty are in quasi contractual nature. Any factual statement or promise about the product ,a description of the product made ,any sample or model provided constitutes the warranty upon which the buyer rely to purchase the goods. ( Faegre Benson,. 2003)(17).

Advancements in Computers in the Last Ten Years :: Essays Papers

Advancements in Computers in the Last Ten Years Computers date back all the way to 300B.C. with the invention of the abacus. This was a calculating devise to do math and it made the people of that time lives a lot easier. That is what the computers of today do but so much more. I will start at the basics of computers while trying not to boar you. The first real computer that actually made calculations was the ENIAC that was made by the government in 1943. It costed $500,000, weighed over 30 tons, had 19,000 vacuum tubes, and consumed almost 200 kilowatts of electricity (computer chronicles 8). Now we have advanced to laptops that are one inch thick and 15 inches wide and can do a lot more than the ENIAC could. There have been thousands of advancements and new technology in computers in the last ten years but I am only going to skim the tip of the iceberg. In 1990, there were tons of new computers and new software but the big issues were the new processors that were super fast for their time. They could go at speeds up to 33mhz, which is how fast your computer brings things up on the screen. In 1991 Microsoft come out with a version 5.0 MS-DOS mode which gave computers more space to run their programs. Also in 1991, Intel introduced a 50mhz microprocessor, which kill its other 33mhz processor of last year. Then a few months later MIPS Technologies come out with a 100mhz processor which started to make the processor group of the computer a very competitive area to come up with new technology for. In addition Hewlett-Packard Co. made the very first color scanner that could scan whatever you wanted and put it into your hard drive. 1991 was a big year for new technology in computers but that’s not all. Pixar began to work with Walt Disney Company to make a film that was completely computer animated and eventually come up with the movie toy story. In 1992 there were three major changes in computers and the technology. First Microsoft stock reached a record high for a computer stock ever and peaked at $113 a share that year. Next Microsoft shipped its 3.1 version of window and it is a big hit and was the most abundant program on the earth.

Normative ethical subjectivism Essay

Normative ethical subjectivism is an ethical stance that attempts to specify circumstances under which an action is morally right or wrong using four distinct arguments that try to prove this claim. Normative ethical subjectivism claims that an act is morally right if, and only if, the person judging the action approves of it. Stemming form this view on ethics a normative ethical theory has been made. An ethical theory is a theory of what is right and wrong. This stance on ethics is the opposite of another ethical stance called methethical antirealism. Methethical antirealism is centered on the idea that because there is no right and wrong actions, just personal preferences there is no such thing as morality. It also states that morals are just a personal preference. Normative ethical subjectivism makes its claim in four different arguments witch are democracy, tolerance, disagreement and atheism. The democracy argument makes the premise that if everyone has an equal right to have and voice moral opinions then everyone’s moral opinions are equally plausible. The next premise states that everyone does have an equal right to have and voice moral opinions. These two premises lead to the conclusion that everyone’s moral opinions are equally plausible. The first premise of the argument creates a problem because not everyone’s moral opinions are equally valid and plausible. I have lots of opinions like the location of LSU, how far away the moon is and, the speed limit on College Drive. My opinion is LSU is located in Arizona, the moon is 100 miles away and the speed limit on College Drive is 75 miles per hour. My opinions are all incorrect showing that the plausibility of an opinion really has nothing to do with one’s right to hold it. Having a right to an opinion is one thing, the truth of that opinion quite another. This undermines the first premise of the argument causing me to reject a crucial part of the democracy argument. Consequently making the argument for democracy unstable and not a good foundation for supporting normative ethical subjectivism. The next argument for normative ethical subjectivism is the argument of disagreement. The first premise states that if there is a constant disagreement among educated, open-minded and, good-willed people about some subject matter, then that subject matter does not admit to an objective  truth. Followed by the premise there is persistent disagreement about ethical issues among educated, open-minded and, good-willed people. These two statements lead to the conclusion that there are no objective ethical truths. There is persistent disagreement among educated, open-minded and, good-willed physicists and mathematicians. We assume that their work is aimed at discovering objective facts. Physicists continue to disagree about that started the universe. But this is not evidence that their views are subjective, it is evidence that the facts they arrive at are merely expressions of personal opinion about some fact. This shows that a professions may deal in objective truths even if it’s open minded and educated deeply disagree with one another. In rebuttal to this, normative ethical subjectivist would state that objective truths don’t exist, but for a finding to be true someone has to believe in it. Thus proving that the first premise of the argument of disagreement if false giving no support for normative ethical subjectivism. The tolerance argument of normative ethical subjectivism has two premises. The first premise states if normative subjectivism is true, then no one’s deepest opinions are more plausible than anyone else’s. The next premise states if no one’s deepest opinions are more plausible than anyone else’s, then we have to respect and tolerate the opinions of all others. Generating the conclusion that if normative subjectivism is true, then we have to respect and tolerate the opinions of all others. Tolerance is defined as â€Å"the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others (Webster’s Dictionary).† In the normative ethical subjectivism argument tolerance is good thus making it good for others to respect the actions and beliefs of that other people. The tolerance argument is still not a persuasive argument for normative ethical subjectivism. The problem with tolerance argument is that we all have to be tolerance of people’s opinions if they truly believe in them, making their opinion morally right. If a person truly believes in intolerance and that intolerant behavior is acceptable then according to normative ethical subjectivism it is morally right. According to the tolerance argument if a racist feels that be does not what to be tolerant of other races and goes around killing them off but truly feels that that he is doing is right then to a normative  ethical subjectivist we must be tolerant of opinion. The tolerance argument does not seem to be helping persuade a person towards normal ethical subjectivism view. The final argument for normative ethical subjectivism is the atheism argument. The atheism argument’s premise states if ethics are objective, then God must exist. Followed by the premise that God does not exist. Structuring the conclusion ethics is not objective. Since it cannot be proven through science and nature that God does exist, it validates the atheist argument. But lets suppose God does exist and he does issue commands on that is morally right and wrong. This brings up the euthyphro question, which asks are actions good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good? The first part of the question, actions good because God commands them, makes God’s commands arbitrary and so if God commands us to throw our children into volcanoes, to rape, or to murder, then these actions would be good actions according to God. And for the next part of the question, God command them because they are good, seems to imply that there is a standard of goo dness over God. It also leaves open the question who is the commander behind moral commands? These arguments against the euthyphro question create doubt in the atheism argument. The arguments for normal ethical subjectivism are not very strong and could deter persons away form relativism. The above arguments against normal ethical subjectivism are few in numbers. For the majority of moral values and situations, actions are not complete but are relative to the persons or groups holding them. Lets say there is an objective moral fact that lying was wrong for all cases and should never be done. Avery close friend of yours is on the edge and suicidal. He asks you if he is an attractive person. You are this person’s only friend and every thing you tell him he takes very literally. He could be the most hideous person you have ever seen, but if you tell him he is ugly he will without doubt kill him self. According to the objective moral fact about lying that I have just made, you have to tell him the truth, that he is revolting. Or you could have a relativism stance and tell him he is an attractive person and stop him form killing him self. In this situation it would be ideal to save the persons  life and prevent the mental problems stemming for know you killed someone. Although normal ethical subjectivism and metaethical antirealism are different but there is a relationship between them. Both of these views on ethics are subjective and both have its problems convincing people to follow them. Facts are mentioned as not important in their arguments. In the atheist argument of normal ethical subjectivism, God’s commands are not to be taken as facts but as suggestions. A big part of metaethical antirealism is that moral facts don’t exist but facts are just part of the role in making decisions. Normative ethical subjectivism is an ethical stance that attempts to establish the situations under which an action is morally right or wrong. It states an act is morally right if the person judging the act approves of it. Normative ethical subjectivism uses the arguments of democracy, tolerance, disagreement and atheism to try proving this claim. Methethical antirealism is an ethical stance that claims there are no right or wrong views or stances on ethical options. Methethical antirealism goes on to state that morals do not exist at all. Even thought normative ethical subjectivism failed make its calm a person can still be a relativist, but I still feel that every moral case must be taken on a base to base cineraria. Works Cited â€Å"Tolerance.† The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary. Revised and Expanded edition 1981.

Gun Control Essay - 1151 Words

Firearms are dangerous weapons used to intentionally and unintentionally kill people, which lead to one of Americaï ¿ ½s most heated debates: gun control. With increasing crime and violence, many people look to gun control laws as a way to slow these trends down. On the other hand, others believe that owning a gun is a constitutional right that should never be taken away. James Q. Wilsonï ¿ ½s essay ï ¿ ½Just Take Away Their Gunsï ¿ ½ is an attempt to offer a solution to both sides of this argument. He claims that illegal possession of firearms is the problem and that frisking suspicious characters would be a good solution to the debate of gun control. However, random frisking to end illegal gun possession is a violation of privacy and an overbearing task†¦show more content†¦A study showed that between ï ¿ ½1997 and 1998, 35,000 of the 45,000 stop-and-frisks reported by the [Special Crime Unit] did not result in an arrest. A statistical analysis revealed that the [Spec ial Crime Unit] stopped 16 African Americans for every arrest madeï ¿ ½ (Boyd 31). This statement proves that if racial profiling is a problem in one of the most diverse cities in the world, then it will definitely be a problem anywhere else in the nation. Another problem Wilson faces is unnecessary search and seizure and the violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Wilsonï ¿ ½s proposal to end illegal gun possession by random frisking goes against the Fourth Amendment. It is lawful to search someone who is suspicious or of questionable character, but only the police officer conducting the search is able to determine who meets these requirements. For example, a police officer could say that a piece of clothing may be suspicious because it may be gang related or that it is baggy enough to fit a gun in the pocket. The possibilities of what a police officer can deem suspicious are limitless and unfair. The rights of citizensï ¿ ½ privacy are at the discretion of a single officer and he or she could easily violate and abuse the rights and responsibilities entailed to him or her, asShow MoreRelatedGun Control766 Words   |  4 PagesGun Control Paper Gun Control has been an issue that has been brought to the public’s eyes in recent years. This main issue has been going on for many years, for example when John F. Kennedy was assassinated; it raised public awareness to the lack of control on sales and also possession of guns in America. Until 1968 guns were available over the counter in stores and through mail catalogs to just about any adult in America. This was an example of how loosely guns were regulated which bring usRead MoreGun Violence And Gun Control1007 Words   |  5 Pagesshootings and various other methods of gun violence, tens of thousands of people die every year. These gun-related deaths primarily originate from murder and children accidentally shooting themselves. Although those in favor of gun control tend to believe that guns should be terminated completely, the second amendment prevents lawmakers from being able to do so. Therefore, in order to combat these causes, alternative gun control solutions mu st be made for each one. Gun-related murders can be decreasedRead MoreThe Gun Laws And Gun Control965 Words   |  4 Pagesoriginate from the accessibility of guns, but rather the actions of an individual that has disregard for life in today s society. There will always be ways for the offender commit crimes with or without guns. What is being done about gun control? We have all heard of all the tragedies throughout the country regarding guns. According to the President (2013) We know that we cannot stop every act of violence with guns, but what if we tried to stop even one? Weapon controls in the U.S. is structured atRead MoreGun Control For Gun Violence880 Words   |  4 PagesIn 2015, 13,367 people lost their lives due to gun violence according to Gun Violence Archive. The Archive also states that out of that number, 693 were children from ages 0-11. We can all agree that there is indeed a problem that we have to address. The solution to that problem, however, has been debated by many. I believe the solution to this problem exists in three parts: Mandatory training and licensing along with more heavily secure gun storage, stricter regulations on the purchasing of a firearm—disabilitiesRead MoreGuns And Their Effect On Gun Control962 Words   |  4 PagesGuns and the ability to use them have been under attack in the United States and many other places throughout the World. There are groups of people that believe that as long as we have the right to bear arms that many unprotected people will lose their lives due to gun violence. There are many trends that come with gun violence and where these mass shooting occur, but a main one is that when a place legally prohibits carrying a weapon then that is where the most gun violence happens. Where guns areRead MoreGuns And Gun Control855 Words   |  4 PagesThe rise in cases of gun violence and related incidences of assault has drawn the public to the issue of guns and gun control. Such has been evident within the spheres of politics especially with the last election period seeing the incumbent president Donald Trump suggesting on stringent gun control laws. However, despite the acknowledgment of the need to have better gun laws, much ground and consensus has never reached. Such, to an extent, contributed to the current lack of political goodwill withinRead MoreThe I ssue Of Gun Control Essay868 Words   |  4 Pages Gun Control Gun Control. Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 30 Apr. 2016. In this website, it discusses the debatable topic of gun control. In the article titled Gun Control, it states that the â€Å"The United States is the leader in per-capita gun deaths among industrial nations.† The main point of this article was to get the point across about the controversy that this has brought into the United States, not only does it quote influentialRead More Gun Control Essay1065 Words   |  5 Pages Gun Control Throughout America there is the constant debate concerning the second amendment or the right to bare arms. One day an innocent kid walking home from school gets shot in a drive by shooting is he just a victim of circumstance or could this of been easily prevented. There are lobbyist for the private ownership of guns and lobbyist for legislation to ban personal possession of guns for good. In this paper I hope that just maybe I can persuade you to think differently on a topic that’sRead MoreThe Assault Of Gun Control920 Words   |  4 PagesGun control has become a hot topic in the United States as of now. There will be those who are for guns and those who are against guns. Those who are for guns, assert that it is our right to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment and those who are against guns, believe that guns are unnecessary and cause more violence. Assault weapons, in particular, have caused too many deaths and the government needs to put a ban on assault weapons. First and foremost, assault weapons have claimed the livesRead MoreThe Issue Of Gun Control Essay982 Words   |  4 PagesGuns have become a serious issue in today’s society. There have been incalculable incidents that involved a gun causing physical harm to a person. This can occur when guns are not properly stored in a safe location. House Bill 75 has been proposed to help solve this problem. With this bill set in place, if a minor has the ability to access a firearm unauthorized, the person responsible for that firearm will receive criminal penalties. As a matter of a fact, there have been cases reported about