Criminal Law:
Murder is one of the crimes that is classified as a felony in most jurisdictions. This means that it is classified among serious crimes and in most jurisdictions, such crimes are not bailable. Just like nay other crime, there are two elements of the crime of murder. These are the actus Reus and the mens rea (Seymour, 2008). Actus reus refers to the act or the omission to act thereby occasioning the death of a person. Murder is also defined as the killing of another person unlawfully with malice aforethought. This brings us to the second element of murder which is men area. This is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm and this is referred in legal terms as malice aforethought. When a person has been accused of murder, these are the two elements that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt without which the prosecution cannot win the case. In law, the crime of murder is result crime. This mean that for a person to be held criminally responsible for murder, there must be proof that either the act or the failure to act by the accused person is what caused the death.
Criminal Liability of Tom
In determining whether or not Tom can be held criminally liable for the death of Rachael, the first two consider is whether the two main elements of murder ate present in this case. Indeed, the actus reus, is there but the mens rea which is the intention to kill and or cause grievous bodily harm is not very clear. In R vs Cunningham, the court held that the prosecution had an obligation to not only show the actus reus of a crime but also the means rea part which is the intention that the accused person had to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased. Also, in R vs Vickers the court argued that for the crime of murder to be said to have been committed, the two elements of actus Reus and mens rea must be present. The other issue that will bring obvious difficulties in determining Tom’s culpability as far as the death of Rachael is concerned is the fact that it is not the direct acts of Tom that caused Rachael’s death. There is chain of events that led to this death and it at this point where it becomes difficult to determine whether Tom is culpable. However going strictly by the definition of murder, Tom may be held criminally liable for the death of Rachel even though his actions did not directly cause her death. This is because as already mentioned; the element of malice aforethought is not only the intention to kill but also the intention to cause grievous bodily harm. When Tom went for the poker and hit Rachael on the head, he may not have intended to kill but he knew that his action would cause serious harm to her. Therefore, Tom would still be held liable for causing the death of Rachael in this case.
Another aspect that may make Tom to be found culpable as far as death of Rachael is concerned is the fact when Tom found Rachael dancing and kissing another man, he did not confront her immediately. If he did, it would be argued that Tom’s actions were done at the sour of moment and in the heat of passion. However, the fact that Tom left and went to the bar and had four whiskies before coming back to confront Rachael only means that he had time to cool and therefore he was well aware of his actions and acted in full knowledge of the results of his actions.
Defenses to Murder
There are various defenses that are available to an accused person who has been charged with murder. However, the defenses are not applicable in every case and a defense will only be applicable depending on the facts of the case. They are therefore applicable on a case by case basis. Defenses in any act as mitigating factors so that the court becomes lenient on the accused person and thus give a less harsh sentence to the accused (Parker, 1983). One of the defenses that Tom can use in this case is provocation. Provocation is one of the common law defenses for murder which gives recognition the frailty of human beings that makes them lose self control when faced with certain situations. Tom can therefore argue that Rachael provoked him by going out with other men and also the fact that she told him that she had found a better lover than him.
Tom could also argue that he was also acting in self defense since Rachael had thrown an empty bottle at him which hit him on the side of his head. Tom will thus argue that realizing that Rachael was becoming violent he also decided to act in self defense so that Rachel could not cause him further harm.
Another defense that Tom could use to have his murder charges mitigated is automatism. This means the inability of someone to have control of their actions due to a pre existing condition such as intoxication. When Tom went to the night club and saw Rachael dancing with and kissing other men, he went to the bar and had four double whiskies before he confronted Rachael. Due to the intake of the whiskies, Tom was not in full control of his actions and this means he was not fully aware of what he was doing. In other words, Tom will be arguing that his actions were involuntary. It is important however to note that where the inability of an accused person to control his actions is partial then this defense can only serve to mitigate the charges but not to exculpate one from criminal responsibility (Jason, 1997).
Another defense which is highly applicable and which could help Tom to very much reduce his criminal responsibility in this case is intervening events. This defense is applicable when the death of a victim is caused by an event which completely separate from the actions of an accused person. In this case, there is normally a discourse between the act of the accused person and the actual cause of death of the victim. In this case, Tom will be arguing that although he hit Rachael with the poker causing her a fractured skull, the actual cause of Rachael’s death is the overdose of the medicine that had been left next to her bed by Nurse Freya.
Tom has a number of options in terms of defenses which he can use to either mitigate the charges that he facts or even having himself exonerated from criminal responsibility as far as Rachael’s death is concerned. However, the most applicable of all the defenses available to Tom is intervening events where Tom will argue that it his not actions that directly caused the death of the victim.
Nurse Freya’s Criminal Responsibility
Nurse Freya is the nurse who was in charge of Rachael when she was taken to hospital. Freya was diabetic and she happened to forget to take her medication on this particular day when she was taking care of Rachael. As a result, she forgot to take away the painkillers that she was giving to Rachael and left them at her bedside. When Rachael regained consciousness, she had an overdose of the painkillers and this caused her death. In ordinary circumstances could be charged for negligence since the act of leaving the painkillers at the bedside of a patient is negligent. However, owing to the fact the Nurse Freya was not in sound medical condition. The court will therefore consider automatism caused by her chronic illness. Again considering the two elements which must be present for one to be said to have committed, it is quite obvious that Nurse Freya lacks the mens rea part of it. This is because, she had absolutely no intentions to kill Rachael or cause grievous bodily harm. With the men rea part lacking then Nurse Freya does not have any criminal liability as far as Rachael’s death is concerned.
Relevant Offenses
If Tom’s defense team is able to convince the court to convince to mitigate the crime with which Tom has been charged with, then the crime that Tom could be charged with is manslaughter. Manslaughter is similar to murder in the sense that it involves the killing of a human being. The only difference between the two is that with manslaughter the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (mensrea) is not present (Gaughan, 2010). This is normally when the court having examined all the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense teams is of the opinion that the accused person had no intention whatsoever to kill the victim, then the charges may be reduced from murder to manslaughter (Johnstone & Tony, 2009). When it comes to sentencing, the punishment for manslaughter is less harsh than that of murder. While in most countries murder is classified as capital offenses together with robbery with violence and treason, manslaughter is not (Pillsbury, 2000). Usually all capital offenses are punishable by death. However manslaughter is punishable by life imprisonment or an even less harsh punishment.
On the other hand, Nurse Freya could also be charged with negligence. Every profession has a professional code of ethics and in the medical field one of the issues that is highly discouraged and therefore severely punished is negligence (Jason, 1997). This is because, unlike other fields, negligence in the medical field could lead to the loss of life of a person. In this case Nurse Freya was negligent for having left the painkillers at the bedside of a patient whom she knew very well that was going through a lot of pain having suffered a fractured skull. There was therefore a high possibility that such a patient would overdose on painkillers in an attempt to have the pain in their body reduced. The court however cannot ignore the fact that Nurse Freya was suffering from a chronic illness that is diabetes. On this particular day, the nurse had not taken her medication and therefore she lacked the capacity required to remember such crucial issues. The court having taken full consideration of all the facts in question may decide to exonerate Nurse Freya from criminal responsibility or charge but with lesser crime such as manslaughter but not murder.
Categorization of Murder
The criminal justice system categorizes crimes into major classes (Christopher, 2008). This usually based on the gravity of the offense as well as the severity of the punishment that is likely to follow. The classes are felonies and misdemeanors. A felony is a crime that carries with it so much weight. In other words, felonies tend to be serious crimes and in most cases, felonies are capital offenses such as murder, robbery with violence causing grievous bodily harm and treason. Misdemeanors on the other hand are crimes which do not carry with them so much severity both in terms of the action and the punishment as well (Herring, 2011). The relevant offenses in this case can be classified as felonies because there is the death of a person that is involved. However based on the evidence adduced and taking full consideration of all the fact, then the court is likely to mitigate the offenses to manslaughter and thus the crimes in this case will be misdemeanors (Duff, 1998).
It is also important to remember that when an accused person is charged with murder, there are degrees of murder with the 1st degree being the most severe kind of murder. First degree murder refers to a case whereby an accused person had preplanned or premeditated and had all the intentions of killing the victim maliciously. The common language used to describe this kind of murder as cold blooded murder stemming from the malicious and deliberate in intentions of the accused person. What Tom did cannot be classified as first degree murder based on the facts of the case.
Second degree murders are those crimes of murder that are committed at the spur of the moment and in the heat of passion. This is especially common when a person has been provoked and goes ahead to act in a certain way without giving much though on the outcome of his action. Usually, whenever a person is provoked but does not act immediately, then such a crime cannot be referred to as one of heat of passion. For instance, when Tom saw Rachael and dancing and kissing other men, he did not confront her immediately. Instead, he went to bar where he had himself intoxicated before going back to confront Rachael. The fact that there was lapse of time between the time Tom was provoked and when he acted means that this not a crime of passion. This is because he had time to cool down and plan his next move.
Third degree murders are those that the mensrea part of the crime or the intention to kill is normally absent. For instance Nurse Freya could be charged with third degree murder also known as involuntary manslaughter. Equally, Tom is likely to fall under this category because Rachael being his wife, he did not intend to harm her.
Conclusion
The laws regarding murder are always somewhat complex in both interpretation and application. However, based on the fact adduced Tom could be charged with third degree murder and so is Nurse Freya.
When writing on such or similar topic, comprehensive research is key to obtain the facts right. An outline is essential to guide you on your writing and research. At mystudenthelp, we can help you achieve the best grade on the subject. Get an original custom written essay from scratch by our professional writers at discounted rates.
