• 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)

    It was held that the nature of the sport meant that specialist attention should be on hand and there was none. Watson belonged to a unique class of persons and would rely on the skill and expertise of the governing body to take reasonable care of him.

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

    It is significant to identify the margin between intention and recklessness not only to decide the degree of guilt of the offender for sentencing reasons, but also to establish in many cases whether the offender is accountable to conviction where the offence charged is one, which necessitate intention to be verified.

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

    The most serious of the non-fatal offences is wounding with intent contrary to s18 OAPA. This can be committed by the defendant causing either a wound or Grievous Bodily Harm (as in s20) but the mens rea is intent to cause GBH or intent to resist arrest.

  2. CRIMINAL LAW

    that a jury is entitled to infer intention if they felt sure that death or GBH was virtually certain to result from the defendant's action and that he appreciated that this was the case. Intention is the first sense may be difficult to establish here.

  1. The terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea

    Previous to this decision there was a prerequisite requirement of an intention to kill whereas now all that is required is that the defendant has the mens rea to cause some harm. A practical example of this is if A punches B intending to cause grievous bodily harm and B

  2. What offences has Basil (who is educationally subnormal) committed in the following circumstances?

    and he has the direct intention to cause grievous bodily harm by lunging at Derek with a cricket bat, thus satisfying the malice aforethought requirement (Moloney) necessary to for Mens Rea. Being 'educationally subnormal' Basil could rely on the defence of insanity, and under the circumstances, whether the defendant raises

  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 ...

    put themselves at risk as a result of committing a heroic act?. Therefore, Sam?s employer is not liable for his injury concerning to his health and safety. Conclusion: Anthony and Maria are liable for the injury of Sam and the death of Hugh.

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