Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Just law is the only type of law in my eyes. Immoral law is just a set of rules and commands.. I guess it all comes down to what your definition of Law is in the end.

    By the way- are you studying law?
    Nope, mainly common sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Nope, mainly common sense.
    Lol.. I'm hoping my common sense won't fly out the window when it's time for my interview!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    I have to agree with you on this. Is there a right answer do you think?
    Crime: An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.

    Therfore it is a crime whether or not he gets caught/ prosecuted
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Crime: An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.

    Therfore it is a crime whether or not he gets caught/ prosecuted
    That states "an act committed"- it does not cover the intention to commit that act..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    There is another very similar question in here:

    If the interviewer had pulled out a gun but missed because he had a bad arm, had he commited a crime?
    He had the mens rea but did not fulfil the actus reus element. however, if he accidentally shot someone else (even though you were his intended target) because of his bad arm, he would still be criminally liable on the principle of transferred malice (R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359), i.e. D still liable for offence if he has necessary mens rea + commits actus reus even if victim differs from 1 intended.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    That states "an act committed"- it does not cover the intention to commit that act..
    That is a crinme because then if intending to do a crime but not actually carrying it out is called planning a crime.

    "...knowingly participates actively in the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of an act of ..."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bo!Selecta)
    He had the mens rea but did not fulfil the actus reus element. however, if he accidentally shot someone else (even though you were his intended target) because of his bad arm, he would still be criminally liable on the principle of transferred malice (R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359), i.e. D still liable for offence if he has necessary mens rea + commits actus reus even if victim differs from 1 intended.
    Thanks Bo and 2776, I'm started to see what you mean! This is something I found on a website:
    "X stabs Y, who, unbeknown to X, is already dead, killed by Z. What action should be taken on X and Y? (I later read, believe it or not, that Y is guilty of murder too)"

    Is the bit in brackets actually true?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Thanks Bo and 2776, I'm started to see what you mean! This is something I found on a website:
    "X stabs Y, who, unbeknown to X, is already dead, killed by Z. What action should be taken on X and Y? (I later read, believe it or not, that Y is guilty of murder too)"

    Is the bit in brackets actually true?
    Let me get this straight. Y gets killed by Z. But X "kills" Y as well. So why is Y involved, (unless he initiated the murder by act of agression etc)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    Let me get this straight. Y gets killed by Z. But X "kills" Y as well. So why is Y involved, (unless he initiated the murder by act of agression etc)
    Yeah pretty much.. that's the bit I don't understand.. how can Y be guilty of murder when she/he is already dead!?.. that just doesn't make sense :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Thanks Bo and 2776, I'm started to see what you mean! This is something I found on a website:

    "X stabs Y, who, unbeknown to X, is already dead, killed by Z. What action should be taken on X and Y? (I later read, believe it or not, that Y is guilty of murder too)"
    do you mean X and Z were guilty of murder (not Y - isn't he the dead guy)?!!

    if it is X and Z - this would be true. Even though Y is dead, X commits the actus reus of murder and also the mens rea - which are the fundamental ingredients of any murder conviction.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Yeah pretty much.. that's the bit I don't understand.. how can Y be guilty of murder when she/he is already dead!?.. that just doesn't make sense :confused:
    Well, it could be that Y initiated the murder by murdering someone named Mrs T who is the wife of Mr X and the daughter of Mr Z. There is simply not enough information for any deducement.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bo!Selecta)
    do you mean X and Z were guilty of murder (not Y - isn't he the dead guy)?!!

    if it is X and Z - this would be true. Even though Y is dead, X commits the actus reus of murder and also the mens rea - which are the fundamental ingredients of any murder conviction.
    I got the situation from an oxbridge website.. perhaps the source isn't correct.. or at least I hope that's the case!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Lol.. ok.. this is more of a moral one:

    If a law is immoral, is it still a llaw and must people abide by it?

    Example: When Hitler legallised the systematic killing of Jews, was it still a law?
    Well yes it is still a law, did he ever actually leaglise the systematic killing of Jews though. Even though it is immoral and laws should relate to that, you cannot use it as a defence. I just feel sorry for the poor sods at Nuremburg who pleaded that they were just following superior orders and still got found guilty. What a bummer, do you follow morals or your orders. (You got killed either way)
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    I got the situation from an oxbridge website.. perhaps the source isn't correct.. or at least I hope that's the case!
    The thing is u need to be able to think outside the box, and see things like if there is other circumstances surrounding the death. I bet this is like a red herring for people who can't do imaginations.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    Well yes it is still a law, did he ever actually leaglise the systematic killing of Jews though. Even though it is immoral and laws should relate to that, you cannot use it as a defence. I just feel sorry for the poor sods at Nuremburg who pleaded that they were just following superior orders and still got found guilty. What a bummer, do you follow morals or your orders. (You got killed either way)
    Why not? Morrally unacceptable laws are void- that's the whole reason why laws exist- to combat this. I'm not sure if he did actually legalise the killing of jews though..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    The thing is u need to be able to think outside the box, and see things like if there is other circumstances surrounding the death. I bet this is like a red herring for people who can't do imaginations.
    Yeah it could be.. it's hard to judge exactley what they want from you though if they don't give you full details of the circumstances. Lol- perhaps you should consider studying Law?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Why not? Morrally unacceptable laws are void- that's the whole reason why laws exist- to combat this. I'm not sure if he did actually legalise the killing of jews though..
    He declared marshal law, so he can basically create laws on his whim, and so does not need to be ratified by the governemnt etc etc.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Yeah it could be.. it's hard to judge exactley what they want from you though if they don't give you full details of the circumstances. Lol- perhaps you should consider studying Law?
    I'm not a good public speaker, im actually very shy. Into medicine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 2776)
    I'm not a good public speaker, im actually very shy. Into medicine.
    Awww..lol. Well good luck with that!

    Thanks guys for all your help!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elle)
    Why not? Morrally unacceptable laws are void- that's the whole reason why laws exist- to combat this. I'm not sure if he did actually legalise the killing of jews though..
    How are morally unacceptable laws void. Just because your morals indicate something, it might clash with others morals. And what do you justify as morals and where do you draw the line. 'It is morally unacceptable for me to let my sister live because she bismirched the family honour' - honour killings?

    COs (conscientous objecters) during WWI, it was dealt with well. Send them in anyway (jailing was bad) as medics. But where do their morals go, they patch up a bloke he goes out and kills another bloke.

    It was more orders to kill the Jews, laws tend to prohibit things not to force people to do things.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.