The Necessity Defense in the Killing of an Innocent Third Party

Reasonable people will generally go a long distance to protect their loved-ones. However, most reasonable people would believe that killing someone else in order to protect their loved ones would be immoral and harmful. In the case of R v. Buzizi [2013], a man killed another in a supposed effort to protect his cousin. On an early morning in Montréal, the accused’s cousin and the victim ensued in a brawl. The initial fight was broken up by a third party. A few moments later, the accused, Mr. Buzizi, who saw the initial assault from afar, intervened and pushed the victim. Then, Mr. Buzizi noticed that the victim had an exacto knife, and that his cousin had a serious wound on his neck. For fear that the victim was going to pull out the

while at the same time not talk over the reader’s head or bore them to death with legal writing. Mr. Forsythe has collected original research that has exposed new pieces of evidences about important problems dealing with the legal reasoning choices and the pieces of evidences mentioned in the people’s majority opinions.

Whether innocent or guilty, no one has the right to end someone’s life. As a civilized society, the act of killing someone as

In this paper, I will explain John Stuart Mill’s moral theory of Utilitarianism, what I think it means, and how it works. I will also explain the Dax Cowart case, and determine if Dax’s choice to die was morally right or wrong. In order to fully understand the implications of Dax’s decision, and to accurately determine its affect on those his decision involves, I will break down and analyze the affect of Dax’s decision for Dax, his mother, Ada, and the Doctor. Lastly, I will gather prior evidence and form a valid conclusion of whether Dax’s choice was morally right or wrong.

Despite recent reforms on the law of murder and voluntary manslaughter; including the special defence of diminished responsibility and loss of control, there are still inconsistencies present making the law unsatisfactory. This area of the law is in ‘dire need of reform’; as pointed out by the Law Commission in their 2006 report; Murder, Manslaughter and infanticide. The report stated how ‘The Law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure built upon shaky foundations.’

Capital Punishment has been used in the United States justice system for many years now, yet one must question whether or not it should be used at all. This paper will look at the Deontological views of capital punishment through the works of Kant’s categorical imperative. Arguments such as the unethical misuse of medical practice by physicians, who swear an oath to do everything in their power to save the lives of the people they care for, while using their expertise on an individual for an execution. Another argument that can be made would be the understanding just what the role of both race and religion may play in making this particular moral issue and question if individuals have a “right to life” and its effect on future execution

Capital punishment has raised debate in America since 1608. Both the “pro-“ and “anti-“ sides of the issue have strong arguments. Some believe killing is simply wrong, and violates universal human rights, others seek the only justice they deem appropriate, equal justice. I will examine the philosophies of Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill, with regards to their stance on the death penalty.

The Supreme Court of Virginia should deny a defendant the right to claim self-defense when the following elements are present: (1) the defendant is charged with murder, (2) the defendant was in the act of sexual intimacy with the victim’s spouse, (3) the victim was

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

As a result, some academics and legal commentators believe that the defence of loss of control should be abolished, including Professor Jeremy Horder. He argued that killing in anger is no more worthy of a defence than killing as a result of greed or envy. (Jeremy Horder Provocation and Responsibility (1992, OUP). But we must not allow our emotions to over-ride our legal reasoning. Taking into consideration the mandatory life sentencing for murder, defendants with mitigating circumstances to kill will be unfairly locked away for life if defence for loss of control is abolished.

At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is

Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

The Supreme Court case, R v Vollmer[8], states that the appellant was convicted of murdering his de facto partner – where evidence as to the deceased’s past violent history in a previous relationship was available at the time of trial but not relied on by defence counsel – where there was no evidence led at trial or on appeal of a history of violence between the appellant and the deceased – where the appellant sought to rely on the defences of self-defence and provocation at trial under sections 271(2), 304 and 668E(1)[9]. Where the cases R v Hajistassi[10], R v Mogg[11] and Re Knowles[12] were applied as precedent to the final decision of the case.

An innocent man is wrongly executed whilst a man who raped and murdered a mother and her thirteen year old daughter spends the rest of his life with three meals a day and cable television. Which of these is the bigger injustice? The use of the death penalty to punish serious crimes is a very controversial topic and there is much debate surrounding the issue. This paper will briefly discuss arguments supporting and against the use of the death penalty.