A, K, and G are minors who are said to be members of a gang. In many occasions, members of a gang are perceived to be involved in evil activities. According to the law, A, K, and G are only suspects and not criminal. Somebody will remain not guilty of a crime until he or she is proven guilty in a court of law. Therefore the mention of the word gang alone is not enough evidence that the juniors are criminals. These groups of workmen, am referring them as workmen since up to this point we have not found them with any wrong doing, are told that another gang is driving through their territory. This make them come up with a plan to attack any other group and damage their property in this case a car, if they try to enter their territory. In trying to analyse the possibility of any crime in these minors we start by looking into their intentions. The planning to attack the other group and destroy their property is an intention in the first place. If the court can be able to take A through a process of close examination for him to acknowledge of the planned crime or take him through a process for him to foresee the other group attacked and their car damaged then A will be guilty of having committed the crime of assault.
Dealing with a minor is sometime trick and it differs from one judge to another or from one police officer to another. The minors who commit a crime end up in a juvenile court. But in this case, A might not be convicted of a very serious offence since he and his team members were only intending to attack. If it could have been an adult, the intention of attacking was to be equated to attacking and so serve a two year imprisonment with a fine paid. The case of the minors will be treated differently. They might be detained and warned against further violation of laws and then set free or they can alternatively be held in custody until his parent or guardian come for them. In very serious offences, minor remains in custody and the case is referred to a juvenile court. During the process of handling their case, the prosecutor will have to demonstrate that the accused child is capable of the guilty mind that is required to handle the case of the child in a juvenile court otherwise the minor will be allowed to go. (Hinkle et.al 2008).
The next issue that we will be discussing will involve two people whose names are B and C. In a cross examination with B and C we find out that they are informed of a group of people who were preparing to attack them. While in a restaurant where they had received the bad news, the group that was allegedly planning to attack them arrives. No sooner had they arrived in the restaurant, than a fight broke up. B becomes so intoxicated with the bad news he had received earlier point that he hits one of the members of the group so hard to the point that he helplessly collapses to the ground. We are not sure whether the group really wanted to attack B and C, neither are we told who started the fight. In trying to seek legal address to this issue using the information provided, the group will be found not guilt of committing an offence of planned assault because there is no enough evidence provided to support this allegation. The group comprises of members X, Y, and Z. the person that was attacked by the B is X. B took a chair with which he hits him. It causes serious damage to X where he finds himself in a coma and at the hospital with a fracture in his head. This is the evidence that indeed B attacked X. The court will find defendant B guilty of committing a crime of assault on X and according to the law, he will be found guilty of a malicious grievous harming of X which will make him to serve a 2 year term imprisonment with a fine (WikiAnswers). It is a malicious harming of somebody because he had developed some hate to the group, having been told that they were planning to attack them, even though this just an allegation that cannot be substantiated. He then developed hate and rage towards their said enemies caused this kind of assault that can be classified as a grievous one.
During this particular episode, C finds himself surrounded by Y and Z. He feels so much scared and threatened to the point of mistakenly believing that his enemy Y has a knife with which he could stab him with. He takes a glass with which he smashes Ys arm causing a deep cut and bruising in his arm. This is also an act of violence against another human being which can result to a jail term of not less than two years imprisonment and a fine. This is according to the law. Defendant Cs attack cannot be justified since it is clear that Y had no knife. He only felt nervous and decided to attack him following his misinterpreted instincts. If Y had taken a knife and tried to stab him, and take the glass and hit Y in trying to defend himself, then he will be found not guilty of assault but committing an act of self defence.
The remaining person Z runs away after witnessing what had happened to his friends X and Y. he is pursued by B and C who takes hold of him, beats him up by providing several punches on him and finally kills him. This can be interpreted in the English law as murder or as just manslaughter. In this case this is just manslaughter because there is no initial intention of performing the killing. The killing came just as a result of the attack that was not intended to cause death. When the two criminals are brought before a prosecutor, it will be determined whether it was an intentional manslaughter or just an un-intentional one. Basing the argument in this particular context, we can judge this killing as an unintentional manslaughter since the two men were provoked to attack. In the process of attacking their enemies, death occurred.
Looking it from the other side of the coin it can be argue that there was no provocation. This is because we are not aware whether X, Y, and Z were planning to attack in the first place. But just as events got unveiled, there is a fight that just started from nowhere. There is need to determine who started the fight to be able to make conclusive decisions without fear of any contradiction. If X, Y, and Z could have been found with a deadly weapon or any object that could cause injury or death to a fellow human being, then it can be clear that they were planning to attack, injure and even kill B and C. These are some of the areas that a prosecutor will try to investigate before a ruling is given to who committed the offence. Basing a ruling on the limited information provided above, B and C are guilty of committing an Un-intentional manslaughter that will be punished by serving some years in prison that will be determined by the judge considering that both of them participated in the attack. Although it is not clear who unleashed the fatal blow, both of them can be judged for the offence because of their participation in events that led to the death of Z. The punishment will be even as long as a life imprisonment but the penalty will solely depend on the judges discretion.
The other case that we will look at and try to analyse the crimes committed is of a person whose name is D. he recently separated from his girlfriend. The girl entered into a new relationship with P. because of the enmity with the new boyfriend who warn him to stay away from his now girlfriend N, D starts threatening his former girlfriend through anonymous hate letters sneaked into her room thought the window at night. These actions are accompanied by silent phone calls made to her. All these are acts of harassments (Minnesota department of public safety). To harass somebody is criminal since you will be disturbing that persons peace. Evidence can be provided against D. Such evidences are the anonymous threatening letters that he has been sending to N and even the silent phone calls made to her. However, in some case, these allegations can be so difficult to determine the source of the threatening massages and phone calls. This will require the intervention of the security and in this case the police. The telephone company owners will also be called upon to assist to track the source of these calls or give advice on the issue. But considering the case that we are discussing, D is very much guilty of harassing his former girl friend N. in the event of being found guilty of the offence of harassment, N will be subjected to civil remedies that will enable her be compensated. Such compensations will include the nominal damage that is paid by the harasser for acknowledging that he has violated your right N also can claim punitive damages. Apart from compensating N, D will also be punished by law. (Minnesota department of public safety)
D buy a gun that he plans to use in his attempt to shoot P. according to the law, it is criminal to possess a gun. To make matters worse the firearm is intended to be used in committing a murder. In interpreting this two events according to law, it is an offence to possess a gun in the first place, secondly, the intention of trying to commit a murder is criminal in itself. He attempts to use the gun by way-laying him to enter his car and then jumps into the passenger seat points the gun at him and tries to shoot, luckily enough P manages to snatch the gun from him and takes refuge in her girlfriends place where he calls the police for help in bringing D to justice. This, in itself, is evidence that D attempted to murder him. If the court can be able to proof that D was the one in possession of the gun and attempted to murder his rival, then he will be guilty of attempted murder which will make him serve a life sentence in prison. The loophole here is that it is not clear whether D touched the trigger when pointing the gun at P. this could have provided more evidence of the attempted murder, but judging from the information given of harassments of the now girlfriend of P, and the rivalry between the two, D is guilty of the crime. This implies that D will be convicted of committing two crimes, one on harassment of his former girl friend and the other is that of attempted murder where he tried to kill P.
Another defendant by the name E is a drug user. He agrees to help his drug-supplier to attack another drug user T who owes him some money. This decision is not voluntary but it is a decision that is made out of fear of being attacked if he cannot provide a helping hand to his friend. Even at the event of attacking T, it is Q who stabs T. from this information E is not guilty of any wrong doing.
From the analysis of event above and arguments based on the law, it can be concluded that A being a minor is not guilty of any wrong doing. He has not matured enough to make his or her own decision so he can be warned of further mischievous behaviour or punished with the help of a cane or counselling from the parent or guardian. For the case of B and C, both of them are guilty of assaulting the other group to the point where one of them dies. Each of them will be judged individually with a crime of assault and then collectively with manslaughter. D is also found guilty of harassment and attempted murder while E is found not guilty of any crime.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment