crim notes

crim notes - He should be sentenced to a long term...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
He should be sentenced to a long term facility. Prior record Past age of adapting to norms and away from crime No drug problem No causal connection to socio-economic status, or familial background; based on the sister’s success there can’t be cause Failure to be caught doesn’t establish proof of non-existence He is a serial offender and repeat offender. His own good was used to justify his previous slaps on the wrist The previous instances he was given the benefit of the doubt, and now societal interests in protecting and maintaining the safety and stability of society. Barber v. Superior Court TWO ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER Mens Reas for murder is intention to cause death of a person Dr.’s had the mens rea, the intent to bring about the death Dr.’s have the duty of providing med. Care to someone in a hospital to provide treatment that provides the best interests of the patients well being. The dr.’s omitted to provide the treatment Therefore the dr.’s had the mens rea. And fulfilled the actus reas by breaching their duty RULE OF LAW : Disconnecting someone from a respirator is not an act. Rather they are omissions. The pulling of the I.V needles out of a person is not the act (the act that causes death), but the omission to do what’s necessary to keep the person alive). 2 nd rule of law : providing someone with respiration and a feeding tube is not an act, but simply a medical procedure. Holding/Rational : Removing the plugs was not an act, but simply an omission or failure to provide a medical procedure TWO: there is not duty to provide treatment to a person in an AND when the spokesperson, on behalf of the patient gives the consent of the patient If someone, by there nature of their occupation, has to provide treatment, then the treatment constitutes an act
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Not murder 1. Patient is in a vegetative, comatose, brain dead-kind of condition 2. The prognosis is that the patient will not recover in the future 3. There are surrogates speaking on behalf of the patients AND say that the patient would want to deny treatment CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH - Hospital refused the request of the surrogates (the parents) to take her off the respirator and feeding tubes, b/c the miss. Law requires clear and convincing evidence that the patient would want that done/ - Whether or not the Missouri law which requires clear and convincing evidence that the patient would want to be taken off life support, - Clear and convincing evidence – between beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence Spectrum of Burden of Proof: P.E (51%) ---- C.&.C (approx. 75%) --- R.D (99%) The argument is that the states required burden of proof is too high, and by being so, interferes with the privacy rights. States argument is that the statute helps to further the states interest in preserving human
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/17/2008 for the course LAW ? taught by Professor Harmon during the Fall '08 term at Touro NY.

Page1 / 19

crim notes - He should be sentenced to a long term...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online