Interpretation of and Application to Facts of Extracts
Buy custom Interpretation of and Application to Facts of Extracts essay
The law is a set of rules that govern the behavior of persons in a particulate nation. Without the law, people would behave in a destructive manner causing harm to themselves and the people around them. For a person to be found guilty of a crime, the persecutor must be able to prove beyond any doubt that the person charged is guilty. This can be done through the use of personal statements by the charged person admitting to the crime, evidence that is material presented to the jury concerning the case, this may include video coverage of a crime or weapons actually used in the crime. The evidence presented to the jury should be concrete and enough to convince them. The evidence may also be from those people who actually were witnesses to the crime. The paper will deal with some of the crimes that may interrelate according to the extracts given. The law that will be dwelt on is the law against the person of 1861. The crime law act will also be evaluated in relation to the crime and disorder act of 2008. Other laws that will be evaluated are the immigration act of 2008 and the criminal attempt act of 1981.
The offence against a person’s Act states that in case an individual is wounded by another individual with a resultant of any bodily harm from any malicious intent, the damaging party may have who reason to cause harm to the other party, prevention of lawful apprehension by the law enforcement forces thus deterring their duties shall be found guilty of a crime and shall be imprisoned for this crime and jailed for a term not exceeding five years. From this law, the two brothers Andrew and Bob who had injured an acquaintance, a local decorator and painter when they were intoxicated were liable for causing injuries to the decorator. Carol who was five feet for the ground on a ladder suffered a broken skull. The intent was clear as the accused was quoted to say that he wanted the decorator to break a bone or two because she was stuck up. The two brothers under this Act are guilty of this crime against Carol and should be jailed for a maximum period of time.
To the two brothers, they were released on bail and later arrested for the same crime. In such a situation, they should oblige to the warrants of the arrest and go peacefully and any reasons to why they were arrested again and any inconveniences could be sorted out latter. The brothers don’t follow this and act out on the law enforcer. The criminal law Act of 1967. The arresting officer used the right amount of force in the detention of the brothers. The Act protects both the arresting officer and the person being arrested from any harm that may befall them during the process of the arrest/ the force used during the arrest should be reasonable or proportional to the force that the arrested person is using.
The law prevents the officer from harming those people that they are arresting from being persecuted by the officers arresting them. The law also protects the arresting officers by allowing them to defend themselves against the people they are arresting just in case they are put inharm’s way. In the case study, the brothers during the arrest caused dander to the arresting officers when they injured one of them called Dennis by breaking his ankle and a cut on the hand. The offence against the law enforcer was a bad move for the brothers who had been guilty of causing bodily damage to Carol. They were sober at the time and theirs is just an attempt to disobey the lay. They are liable for the two offences and the second offence might not be taken lightly by the jury as they will give the accused a maximum sentence for their disregard for the law. The brothers could not plea for self defense as the officers arresting them did not use any unnecessary force. Self defense is used as a bargaining chip in those instances that the accused can justify any threat to his life and that any action he did were necessary for his own safety. The police were well introduced and the brothers reacted on defiance rather than fear for their safety.
The crime disorder act of 1998 was later amended to cover all the crimes that are racially and religiously motivated. The Act was designed to protect people because everyone has the freedom of worship. The Act deals with the motive of the charged individual at the time in which he committed the crime. The reason why the individual committed the crime should be religiously related or concerning the racial difference. The Act classifies the meaning of racial groups to signify the differences that may be there in humanity to quantify race. The religious groupings are the differences in the religious beliefs in a given nation with a mixed religion. The religion differed because the individuals posses different faiths. In the case study, Edna who is an elderly professor of theology was discussing atheism to some of her students in the university. Frank who is the bar tender in the same place Edna was having her discussion with the students was a strong believer in the Christian faith and the discussion with the students was disturbing him.
Latter he follows her home and confronts her for bringing shame to her religion by interacting with evil people who are atheist. The bar tender has no right to interfere with the beliefs of Edna and thus any action he does after the confrontation that may cause harm to her will hold him partly liable for any harm. Frank goes on and pushes her with no intention to harm her but she falls and hits her body on a rock breaking her hip. He is liable for causing bodily harm to Edna and is to be found guilty and can be jailed for a period of up to five years. Since the individual committed this crime as a result of the religious difference, from the reason that frank gave to Edna, she was a disgrace to the religion for associating with evil people, he was guilty of the crime that constitutes the crime and disorder Act.
The charged was liable for a jail sentence of up to seven years. The two crimes that the defendant has been charged with may run concurrently and the measure may vary depending on the leniency of the jury. They may find it that the crime committed by frank wwas not intentional and charge him for the minimum sentence the crime holds. The fact that the bar tender acted in defiance of his religion constitute the motive for the crime. In the same Act of self defense by an individual, the act by Frank to try apologizes for his mistake to Edna. The apology doesn’t go well as during the apology the accused finds the victim entangled by the twine in her bed and tried to cut her free. From the previous attack, the victim sees the knife and thinks that frank is still out to punish her for socializing with people of evil ways. In self defense, he pushes him and he falls hard to the ground and breaks several ribs. Edna is justified to act in this way as she is entitled to prevent any bodily harm upon her. The previous history among the two protects her from any persecution because Frank had not used the correct avenues to go about apologizing to Edna. Because she acted out on defense, the jury would not find any reason to jail Edna as frank had jumped over the wall to apologies for the previous offence and this rose suspicion and defense nature of humans in Edna.
The criminal attempt Act of 1981 deals with the intent of the accused to commit the crime the law deals with the intentions of the individual prior to the actual crime. The individual may do some activities in an act of revenge or with the intention to prove a point. In relation to the case study, the sister to carol is upset by the story of how the two brothers treated her sister and she heads to their house armed with a small revolver. This show clear intent to commit a crime, the motive is clear and the gun will be the evidence to the crime. The jury will spend very little time thinking of the reason why she committed the crime and will be forced to jail her regardless of the reason. The sister goes forth with the crime and shots bob in the knees, the bodily harm of the victim constitute a crime against Glenda. Endangering the life of Bob is a crime to constitute an attempt on his life. The sister will be liable for two crimes for meditation to a crime and actually going through with the plan and causing bodily harm to the victim.
The interrelation in the laws ensures that the sentences that the defendant is accused of follow each other and the punishment is fair to both parties. All the acts discussed in the essay deal with the matters concerning human safety and the factors that may affect the right of the individual to live. The effect of religion on the interrelation of people is evaluated. The laws are enacted to ensure that the rights of people are upheld. The rights of each individual are respected as long as they don’t go against the rights of the other individuals in the same society. The jury is used to represent the views of the community in relation to a particular case and they evaluate the behavior of the defendant in relation to the case at hand. They evaluate the evidence and the testimonies in the case to give the verdict. The judge is the one liable for ensuring that the law is followed while implementing the sentences.