• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

critical evalution of murder

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How satisfactory is the current law on murder? The current law on murder is relatively satisfactory although improvements do need to be made. One of the existing problems concerns the mens rea of the crime. In some ways it can be considered to broad. A person who kills someone else but only intended to cause grievous bodily harm, but not to kill, can be convicted of murder even if they didn't foresee that death could have been a result of their actions. This was the case in R v Cunningham [1981] where the defendant hit the victim again and again with a chair and eventually they died. The defendant was convicted of murder even though he argued that he had not intended to kill. The House of Lords agreed with the trial judge's direction to the jury that an intention to cause grievous bodily harm was sufficient mens rea to uphold a conviction for murder if the victim dies of his injuries. ...read more.

Middle

Recent news pictures have shown startling images of 12 week old foetuses moving about in the womb and showing strong resemblances to a 'real baby' rather than a group of cells. All this demonstrates that foetuses should be included within the actus reus of murder. However, there are a number of different offences to cover the harm of unborn babies. Under s.58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, it is a crime for a mother to try and induce a miscarriage and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 states that the intentional killing of a foetus that is capable of being born life but hasn't been yet, is an offence. The judge in Rance v Mid-Downs HA [1991] went as far as to say that once the foetus had developed to such a stage that it could be born breathing using its own lungs and independent from its mother, then the destruction of it would be illegal. ...read more.

Conclusion

However, Lord Bingham argues that abolishing the mandatory life sentence would allow judges to be more leniently. There are problems with each argument but something needs to be done to make the law fairer. Perhaps the answer is to create separate offences rather than the single crime of murder. But how could you classify all of the different types of murder and the motives behind them? The most appropriate suggestion seems to be to abolish the mandatory life sentence and allow the jury some discretion in deciding how serious they think the murder is therefore helping the judge to pass a suitable sentence. All in all the current law on murder is fairly satisfactory although the problems raised need to be dealt with so that everyone who has committed this offence can be treated fairly with respect to the type of murder they have carried out and their motives behind it. The law also needs to be amended so that every victim of murder (e.g. a foetus) is treated equally. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    The question is whether the sports person has fallen below that standard and it is a question for the judge to decide based on the facts proven in the case. It is up to the claimant to prove that the defendant was negligent and this may be the hardest task.

  2. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    The first of which is the case of R. v White9, this case is crucial when considering the principle of causation. In this case, the defendant attempted to poison his mother by putting cyanide in her drink. She died of a heart attack before she drank the poison. Nevertheless, the defendant was held to be guilty of attempted murder

  1. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    However, this does not operate when the divergence between actus reus and mens rea is relevant to the definition of the offence: the two must refer to the same crime (Pembliton [1874]). cIyDI from cIyDI coursewrok cIyDI work cIyDI info cIyDI As Glanville Williams once pointed out, "the act constituting

  2. Discussing Homicide - muder - actus reus.

    As the court stated in R v PAGETT (1983) 76 Crim App Rep 279 - CA, 'the accused's act need not be the sole cause, or even the main cause, of the victim's death, it being enough that his act contributed significantly to that result'. To repeat: it is not necessary to show that the defendant was the sole

  1. Jenny had an argument with her boyfriend, David, which resulted in David throwing Jenny ...

    which causes actual bodily harm to the victim. This may involve the victim suffering an injury which may require hospital treatment such as stitches. The mens rea for this offence is either intention to put the victim in fear or Cunningham recklessness as to the putting of the victim in fear leading to ABH or intention to apply

  2. CRIMINAL LAW

    The question is, is it sufficient to constitute 'novus actus interveniens' to enable the law to say Tom is not legally liable to have caused Sara's death. The test that would be applied here would be the Smith's test - was the injury that resulted from Tom's act the operating

  1. Murder, manslaughter, assaults, sexual offences and defences.

    not merely some injury or wound. If this ulterior intention can be shown, the prosecution have also established that the grievous bodily harm was caused maliciously. (R v Cunningham (1981) HL: - Mens rea of murder - intention to commit homicide or grievous bodily harm). Lord Hailsham LC: 'Malice aforethought has never been limited to the intention to kill or to endanger life'.

  2. In this report, the differences between contractual liability and tortuous liability are explained. In ...

    In its simplest form, cause in fact is established by evidence that shows that a tortfeasor's act or omission was a necessary antecedent to the plaintiff's injury. Courts analyze this issue by determining whether the plaintiff's injury would have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work