Essay Example: Criminal Offense

When a criminal offense is committed the offenders are liable for their acts, and they are charged according to the law prohibiting the attack made. In the mundane language crime is an unlawful act punishable by a law enforcement authority in line with the penal code of the respective state or region. However, according to the contemporary society crime has no specific definition except for it to be defined by the laws of each country or state. The set rules and regulations of a particular states or country are what defines crime in its context (Blucher 2008, p.31). The law enforcement authority determines the reasonable punishment to be given to a criminal depending on the magnitude of the act committed. However, in some cases, it is difficult to establish whether an action is a crime or a civil wrong except through an in-depth analysis in accordance with the laws governing a particular state or a country. In the New South Wales crime is regulated and determined by the NSW crime commission which is the statutory body of the government of the land. It is founded by the crime commission act of 2012 NSW (Blucher 2008, p.33). The commission was first constituted under the title states drug crime commission in 1985, however, the name of the board was changed in 1990 and named the criminal assets recovery act. It was later called the New South Wales crime commission which stands to date. According to the laws of New South Wales, murder and manslaughter are two different categories of crime, and they are differentiated by the act according to the motive behind the crime committed. The paper will critically examine a scenario in form of a case study and analyses its facts to determine the charges to be pressed on the offender.

The New South Wales crime commission defines manslaughter as killing without an intention to do it implying that a person may have performed actions that led to the death of an individual but without a plan to kill them. The maximum charge of manslaughter criminal offense is a maximum of 25 years jail term according to the law of New South Wales. However the costs are not only limited to the jail term, but other penalties include shorter jail periods, fines, and bonds among others.An average sentence according to the laws of the land is seven years (Blucher 2008, p.35). Manslaughter can be categorized into two, and this includes voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter contains the elements of murder although the offender's actions are reduced to the abnormality of the mind where the act is committed when the offer has a mental impairment, and this must be proved through medical tests. On the other hand, murder is homicide with an intention to kill and this implies that for a crime to constitute murder there must be an intent to kill (Eburn 2001, p.206). In this regard when such happens the offender must have planned and intended to end the victims life and proceeded to performer the acts causing the death of the person. The extreme penalty for murder according to the New South Wales law is a life imprisonment, and the average sentence is 20 years jail term. The probable issues surrounding death is self-defense where the person killed the victim in an attempt to protect themselves. Similarly, under duress where the life of the offender is under threats or the life of their family is in the same states such that murder becomes the only option and can be said to be a necessity.

Regarding the case of Noah and the deceased Bo Lee, Noah is criminally liable for committing an offense based on the facts above. In consideration to the New South Wales, crime commission acts Noah is responsible for the crime of manslaughter because he caused the death of Lee although from the facts he never intended to commit homicide (Eburn 2001, p.208). The end of the deceased was created by the offender's acts of snatching the bag, and as a result, the dead death occurred through a chain of events' which are not directly meant to cause the death of the victim. However, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that an offender did not have the intention of causing the death of the victim for the case to be considered as manslaughter. Regarding the crimes amendment provocation bill, 2014 of the New South Wales the grounds for the defense of homicide has been outlined regarding section 23 of the crimes act of the 1900 (Eburn 2001, p.209). About the society's concern regarding the killing of his wife case of Mr. Singh, a select committee was formed in June 2012 to evaluate the situation of Singh who took the life of his wife, Manpreet Kaur. At the trial chamber, the offender claimed that his wife provoked him to commit the offense by telling him that she has never loved him and that she was in fact in love and seeing someone else. Besides, she threatened him with deportation, and as a result, the offender lost self-control and cut his wife throat several times with a box cutter.

Based on the situation surrounding the case Mr. Singh claimed that he should not be charged for murder but a slightly severe offense because the killing was not intended and besides he was provoked by the victim (Eburn 2001, p.210). The jury agreed to the plea of the offender and was sentenced to a seven years jail term which is an average term for the case of manslaughter. In reaction to the situation to acquit the offender of the murder charges, the jury had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the result of the claim was provoked and not intended. It can only be determined by analyzing the facts surrounding the case. Similarly, in the case of Noah .v. Lee, the offender, should be acquitted of murder charges and his trial considered manslaughter because he had no intention to kill (Meure 2001, p.240). According to the considerations of 23 of the crimes act of 1900 (NSW), He is liable for manslaughter because through the attempt to snatch the bag from Bo Lee. He caused her to slide and damage on her body was evidence where she could not stand on her own, and as a result of the position that she laid on the ground, she was run over by the Prado. In this regard, it was not Noah's intention for Lee to die, but death was caused by circumstances surrounding Noah's attempt to snatch the bag therefore in this case there is no intent to cause death. On the contrary, it cannot qualify to be murder because the offender did not have the intention of killing the old woman but to obtain her bag and steal the money therein (Meure 2001, p.242). He is therefore acquitted of the charges of murder because the death occurred not as an intentional act but as a result of committing another crime.

Noah is potentially liable for Ms. Lees death on more than one basis. Firstly, through the act of pushing her, Lee lost balance, and she fell on the ground this is the instance where she could have suffered her life through the head and other body injuries. In this regard, death would be said to be caused by Noah. Besides, he is also potentially liable for Ms. Lee's death because if he did not push her, she would not have fallen on the ground between the two parked vehicles injuring her self and being unable to recollect herself up from the field. Because of the position that she fell due to the push her head was protruding on one part of the road that made it possible for an on coming vehicle crusher head. Therefore it is due to the actions of Noah that led to the crushing of Lee to death he is consequently potentially liable for her death.

In regard to Noahs case he will be charged for involuntary manslaughter by an act of criminal negligence. The charge is appropriate because Noah did not have the guilty mind of killing the deceased, but he intended to obtain the bag. Regarding the considerations on 23 of crimes act of 1900 (NSW), there is a relationship between the death of the deceased and the actions of the offender where although Noah did not have the intention of killing Ms. Lee his actions led to his death (Meure 2001, p.245). The decision will be based on the fact the death was caused by an unlawful act and that Noah committed the illegal act. In this case, the criminal act was stealing and pushing the old woman such that she incurred injuries. It is also evident that the offender committed the illegal act. Similarly, the manslaughter is as a result of criminal negligence wherein an attempt of stealing the bag from Ms. Lee Noah did not exercise the due standard of care expected from a reasonable and wise person Nydam.v. The queen (1977). Noah did not exercise the standard of care on the old woman when he was committing the criminal act.

On the other hand, he can be charged for felony murder because the death of the deceased came as a result of the offender committing another crime.in this regard the intention of the offender is not considered, but his actions count as a crime. The charges are as explained because the death of the deceased occurred as a result of Noah snatching the bag from her. In essence, it implies that the end came as a result of attempting to steal (Meure 2001, p.247)

. Finally, he should be charged for stealing although it is directly linked to the death of the deceased. In consideration to the New South Wales, crime commission acts Noah is liable for the crime of manslaughter because he caused the death of Lee although from the facts he never intended to commit homicide (Shepherd 2009, p. 35). The end of the deceased was caused by the offender's acts of snatching the bag, and as a result, the deceased death occurred through a chain of events' which are not directly meant to cause the death of the victim (Statham 1998, p.301). However, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that an offender did not have the intention of causing death of the victim for the case to be considered as manslaughter

It is important to note that the New South Wales crime commission defines manslaughter as killing without an intention to do it implying that a person may have performed actions that led to the death of an individual but without a plan to kill them. Besides, murder is homicide with an intention to kill, and this implies that for a crime to constitute murder there must be an intent to kill. In this regard when such happens the offender must have planned and intended to end the victim's life and proceeded to performer the acts causing the death of the person. The maximum charge of manslaughter criminal offense is a maximum of 25 years jail term according to the law of New South Wales (Statham 1998, p.303). However the charges are not only limited to the jail term, but other penalties include shorter jail periods, fines, and bonds among others.An average sentence according to the laws of the land is seven years. Manslaughter can be categorized into two, and this includes voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter contains the elements of murder although the offender's actions are reduced to the abnormality of the mind where the act is committed when the offer has a mental impairment, and this must be proved through medical tests (Statham 1998, p.304). The extreme penalty for murder according to the New South Wales law is a life imprisonment, and the average sentence is 20 years jail term. The probable issues surrounding death is self-defense where the person killed the victim in an attempt to protect themselves. The charges against Noah are equivalent to his actions of the criminal activity, and besides, he should be given an average jail term because he did not intend to cause the death.

References

Blucher, T., 2008. Annotated Criminal Legislation New South Wales 2007, 2008 Ed [Book Review]. Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, (210), p.31.

Box, S., 2012. Power, crime, and mystification. Routledge.

Euburn, M., 2001. A new model of provocation in New S...