You are not logged in to Prodigits. Please register or login.

Subject: Defence of necessity

phallica 25.04.19 - 01:55pm
They ate a boy Jesus lol. * +

piggle 25.04.19 - 03:11pm
The fu*k is up with sterilising the lassie while deeming she can't give consent. Can't keep 2 people under their care away from each other so perform a surgery she also can't consent to?

Wild * +

vamp.boy 25.04.19 - 03:56pm

I had so many recurring dreams about this ancient case, only to later realize that the name of the cabin boy from the boat who was eaten by the adults was called Richard Parker. The same name of the tiger onboard the boat in life of Pi, which on its own merit was a movie that felt like a dream in a strange sequence. * +

vamp.boy 25.04.19 - 04:11pm

In a completely unrelated case from R V Blaue, a man stabbed a Jehovah's witness who later refused blood transfusion because it was against her religious belief and died from blood loss, the court held that the chain of causation was not broken based on the egg shell skull rule (which is essentially to take your victim as they are) and the defendant was convicted for murder, do you think the rule is fair?
Essentially if someone gets stabbed and ends up in a hospital who later neglect them and refuse to give them any proper treatment, the court stated in R v Smith and Cheshire that so long as the wound remains the operating and substantial cause of death, no chain of causation is broken.
Do you think the court's decision in both of these issues are fair?

By the way causation is a matter falling under the actus rea of the crime (which is the act) It must be combined with the Mens rea (intention) to form a criminal conviction.

There goes another rant. *

+ refresh
+ go to page 1-2
+ my page
+ functions
3 search
4 submit a reply
6 first page
+ bookmark
8 General Chat Forum
9 Forum Index

Custom Search