CriminalLaw in Canada
Criminallaw in Canada
Crimerefers to the commission of an offence that is outlined in thesupreme rule that governs any specific country. In this regard,individuals are expected to conduct themselves appropriately failureto which they shall face prosecution. This paper seeks to evaluate acase in which two persons went out, engaged in a ferocious fighttaking into consideration the legal responsibilities of each of theperson involved.
Rigaudshould be convicted for homicide or murder because Lightwood died asconsequence of various violent acts that Rigaud committed over anextended period of time during the fight. For instance, the two wereengaged in a ferocious fight that led to Rigaud knocking himunconscious by hitting his head with an ice pick. Although, he mightnot have died instantly, Rigaud convinced himself that the friend wasdead and threw him over a clip.
Alegal analysis indicates that Rigaud might have had intentionsformurder or manslaughter at the moment of the fatal fight and sincehitting Lightwood with an ice pick did not achieve his murder plans,he threw him over a clip. Under section 29(a) of the criminal code,Rigaud’s act is termed as murder because he intended to killLightwood or cause bodily harm likely to kill him. He knew thatfighting him was reckless whether it kills him or not. A series ofacts committed by Regaud ranging from climbing the mountain, breakinginto fights and hitting the friend with an ice pick and throwing himover a clip are all part of the same transaction and intentions( mensrea) of murder, (Verdun-Jones,2015). A practical application of voluntariness in commission of an offenseis evidence in the case of Thirous (1993) as ruled by the SupremeCourt of Canada.
Fightingis against the law therefore, he should have avoided it. Similarly,if there was any clear cause of conflict that resulted into theferocious fight, there are legal ways of solving the conflict ratherthan engaging in acts that result to bodily harm or death. In thiscase, it can be argued that Rigaud’s criminal responsibility was anact of commission of voluntary act. A voluntary act is an act done onfree will. Hitting Lightwood’s head was a product of Rigaud’spersonal free will. It was a result of his willing mind at liberty totake a definite action or decision to hit Lightwood and throw himover a clip. He must have had a will power to fight and killLightwood although he knew it was against the law.
Physicaland emotional dimensions of voluntariness involved makes Rigaud’sacts voluntary. For instance, in the physical dimension, Rigaudexpressed his personal will to kill Lightwood through the physicalcontrol he exerted over his body. There was muscles movement involvedin fighting, hitting Lightwood and throwing him over a clip. Moralcontrol is on his careful thought on killing his friend and on theway, he devised his means of killing.Based on section 271 of criminalcode, Rigaud showed some negligence. Negligence is legal principlethat states that if a person undertakes to execute an act, it becomeshis duty and failure to do it violates or harms human life,(Verdun-Jones, 2014). Accepting to go on mountain climbing withLightwood, Rigaud had accepted to be his guardian or to beresponsible for anything that happens to his friend. If hittingLightwood was an accident, Rigaud (as a guardian or responsiblefriend) should have called for help to have him taken to the hospitalto save his life. But just because he intended to kill him, heneglected his duty and threw him over a clip. Therefore, he should beconvicted of negligence that resulted to death.
Verdun-Jones,S. N. (2015). Criminallaw in Canada: Cases, questions, and the code.Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Canada.
Verdun-Jones,S. (2014). CanadianCriminal Cases Selected Highlights.(4TH) Nelson Education Ltd