Discuss the Advantages and Disadvantages of Using the Subjective Test for Criminal Recklessness, as Used in the Case

Applying operant conditioning to the criminal justice provides very useful information. It helps in the development of laws and regulations as well as determines reasons why individuals commit crimes. This theory can also, after study, possibly be a predictive of individuals who commit crimes and also provide ideas on how to deter criminal behavior.

There are also disadvantages with this as it stops people socialising in real life. Many people do get addicted to their mobile phones and forget how to connect with the real world because they’re too busy peeling away at their screens. Many people are so used to phones they ignore face to face conversation for virtual ones which is a real disadvantage as it slows people down in the real world. Same as a computer it can be hacked as many leave all their personal information on one handy device as it is extremely convenient but also leaves a risk as someone might take their phone and suddenly all your things are exposed without your recognition. It can also lead to serious injuries as many people forget what they’re doing whilst on their mobiles phones such as crossing the road whilst being on their phone they might not see what’s coming to them and also whilst driving! Many addicted phone users can cause a lot of harm whilst using their phone when driving as this puts not only themselves in danger but also the public.

Following the M 'Naghten, Durham, and Irresistible Impulse Rules, the Model Penal Code test came into the legal system in draft form in 1962 (Carter-Yamauchi, 1998). It is a reformed version of the above rules and is also known as the American Law Institute Standard or Brawner Rule (Fulero & Wrightsman, 2005). This test has two prongs to determine sanity due to a disease or defect. The cognitive capacity component states that the person must lack the capacity to accept that was he did was wrong, while the volitional capacity component states they are unable to do what is accepted of the law (Carter-Yamauchi, 1998). This test is a combination of the mental disease component of the Durham Test, the volitional component of the Irresistible Impulse Test, and the cognitive component of the M 'Naghten Rule.

In the instance of drunk driving, the actions of the drunk driver are related to the safety of the drivers within their proximity and therefore affects not only the driver but others as well. Our previous moral experiences allow us to determine what the intentions of the drunk driver might be. Some drivers may choose to drive under the influence of alcohol because they have had an emergency that requires them to be at a certain place and they do not have the means to reach to their destination except for driving themselves. In this case, the context becomes complicated and intricate. However, if the driver is risking his own and other drivers’ safety, it becomes clear that their intentions are based on nonchalance and disregard for others.

This reckless driving--113 m.p.h--was a surprise and frustration for the author because his son was reasonable, measured, and mostly repentant after the incident; his son’s only qualm was that he shouldn’t have been cited for reckless driving because he was incredibly focused and thoughtful about where and when he was speeding. This odd paradox was frustrating to the author because he simply couldn’t understand his son’s thinking.

“In the hands of an impaired driver, a vehicle becomes a murderous weapon.” ( ) Everyone can think of someone who has driven impaired, or even maybe you have done it yourself. The fact that one can think of someone who has driven impaired is a problem. Too many people are getting behind the wheel after drinking, smoking; or are not paying attention while they drive. Impaired driving continues to a problem although strides have been made to make a difference. There are many different types of impaired driving, each that have their own consequences. These types, and consequences will be explored in this essay.

Prompt 1) Discuss and characterize the differences between committing a crime purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently (be sure to use examples and to distinguish clearly, in particular, between acting knowingly and acting recklessly). Given this analysis, what might explain why we blame a purposeful crime more than a reckless one?

When a defendant is convicted of a crime, arrested, and stand trial there are multiple ways that they can defend themselves. The criminal justice system has a variety of types of criminal defenses that one should be familiar with, if ever in the position of being charged with an offense. Within this paper, I will be talking about seven different types of criminal defenses, starting with: insanity, automatism, duress, self defense, intoxication, necessity/ lesser harm, and mistake of fact.

All crimes consisted of an act is carried out with minds that have planned a guilty thought according to common law. Criminal intent can be the basis of fault and punishment according to intent is a solid promise of the criminal justice according to modern society. Crimes that lack the intent element are less common and are usually graded lower, as either misdemeanors or infractions. Specific intent is the intent with the highest level of culpability for crimes other than murder. Specific intent means that the defendant acts with a more sophisticated level of awareness (Connecticut Jury Instructions No. 2.3-1, 2011).When you hold someone liable for an offense without considering the carelessness of the person then we refers to it strict liability. In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. Concurrence in the law is the requirement that a guilty mental state coincide with a guilty

It is my opinion that if Yusel Cairo Ceballos was not driving over the posted speed limit for the roadway, or under the influence of alcohol at the time of this crash, his normal faculties would not have been impaired to the point of making unwise driving decisions and would have been able to drive and maintain his vehicle within a single lane of traffic. The road itself was in good condition and free from obstruction and did not contribute to this crash. As a result of the crash, the driver of Vehicle 1 received fatal

When a person is charged with a crime the type of defense that they choose could ultimately determine their fate. There are many different types of defenses that exist in our criminal justice system. In this paper I will be taking a brief look at two different cases that have implored two different types of criminal defenses. I will look at the nature and types of defenses used in the cases and what evidence was used to demonstrate defense. I will describe how justification and excuse played a role in the cases and I will also be describing the outcome of each case.

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using the subjective test for Criminal Recklessness, as used in the case of G and R (2003)

The first element subjective tests utilize is that the subject had no intention of committing the crime until the government encouraged them to do so [1]. For example, an undercover officer created a relationship with someone, then asked them to buy drugs, refusing until they eventually did. The second element would be that the crime was committed due to the encouragement of the government [1].

In this essay, I will describe the elements of a criminal act, address the law of factual impossibility, the law of legal impossibility, and distinguish whether the alleged crime in the scenario is a complete but imperfect attempt or an incomplete attempt. I will address the ethical or moralistic concerns associated with allowing a criminal defendant to avoid criminal responsibility by successfully asserting a legal defense such as impossibility. The court was clearly wrong to dismiss the charge against Jack of attempted murder of Bert.

The true definition of intention is not very clear, as there are different definitions by different courts. The term ‘intention’ in criminal law has been defined as direct intention whereby a consequence is intended and desired by the defendant, and indirect (oblique) intentionwhereby the defendant can foresee a virtual certainty.Many seriouscrimes require the proof of intention or recklessness on the part of defendant, and in criminal proceedings, the court or jury must decide whether the accused has the intention or the ability to foresee the result of his actions by reference to all circumstances of the case. Thus, ‘intention’ can be classified as particular, general and