Category: Criminal Law

Gun control is one of the most debatable issues in the United States. Americans are in conflict about whether gun control is necessary, or if their right to the second amendment is being taken away. Many believe that if we have strict gun control would reduce gun violence. Many other people believe that people should have the right to bear arms for protection, or even for the desire of hunting. In the Bill of Rights, it is stated that Americans have the constitutional right to own guns, and to be allowed to have a license. The second amendment of the Bill of Rights states that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The second amendment clearly states that people have the right to bear arms. the amendment doesn’t exactly say go shoot up a movie’s theatre by accident, like we have been seeing on the news for the past couple of years the amendment doesn’t say go to elementary school, and shoot up everyone’s that is in it. on December 14, 2012, one of the worst tragedies hit the united states when twenty years old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six adult members in mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary. After Lanza committed a homicide, he committed a homicide which left many people wondering why would a person in their right mind takes away an innocent child’s life, with a gun. This is one of the reasons why gun control is needed, and why it is so important for everyone to be able to get access to guns. Americans have a mixed definition of gun control. In the article What is gun controlled by Joseph Blocher and Darnell A.H Miller it “stated that gun control is “conventionally understood as direct legislative regulation of use, possession, sale, and manufacture of firearms, is just one part of a larger regulatory environment. When heard about gun control, they about their second amendment being stripped away when in actuality they just want us to use, and get guns safely.

Carrying guns in public causes a lot of unnecessary panic, because a lot of people are afraid of what that one accidental touch might to do a person. That is why a lot of places like Starbucks, and other places are saying no gun policy at their building, which people are over-conflicted because of it. Assault is one of the big reasons why guns control needs to be stricter because a lot of people pull out guns when they are having a disagreement which can end a person’s life, as quickly as a snap of a finger. The article What is gun controlled? discussed should peoples be allowed to carry guns on another person’s property. The open is over conflicted which opens a big debate since the second amendment doesn’t exactly state where, and when you can carry your gun, or not have it which makes things more complicated. Businesses excluded guns from having guns on their property if you trespass what consequences will you get then? Some states like Tennessee allowed you to carry guns in your car as long it is your property. Images someone having a mental problem, and having road rage at the same time, they would probably use a gun. People with mental health should be allowed to purchase a gun, but they still do since most places don’t follow the guideline when selling a firearm. Most American have mental health issues from depression, and schizophrenia, with some improvement with treatment, but it is usually unlikely. Depression can cause a person to go to a dark place, when you are in there dark you usually resolve your issues through violence. most depressed people usually committed suicide by gun, which could be avoided if people did background checks before selling a gun to a person. Guns should not be so accessible when people are taking away their life or other people’s life. America has the highest gun violence issues in the world. [ “According to Jens Ludwig in the articles reducing gun violence in America.”] United States gun violence’s usually contributed by homicides, and gang activity among minorities, but especially African American. Ludwig states that American gun violence usually contributes from contributed from homicides, and gang activity among minorities, especially African American. Gang violence has been over-popularized by the media for as long as hip-hop music has existed. Most teenagers think it is cool to own a gun because the lookup is not up to no good. African American have the biggest gun violence in their community because of their economic standard, and their role model. Guns are also easy to access in their community because people need money, when you need resources you sell whatever you have. Even though the gun is easy to access but with few gun-controlled rules it can make a difference. In the article, Ludwig stated the waiting period to be able to purchase handguns has reduced homicides by 17 percent, which shows what can be done if gun control becomes strict. A lot of people supported the idea of waiting to buy a gun because it can save a life.

According to Ludwig, federal gun control has prohibited people that are illegal aliens, minors, adults with felonies, and people with mental health illness are restricted from buying firearms. however, the federal gun control act doesn’t require federally licensed firearm dealers to check to see if a person is eligible to purchase one. Anyone can buy a gun, which is not in favor of those whose lives might be taken away because the cooperated wanted to make more money. Other peoples are against gun control because they things they right of the Second Amendment is being taken away. Those opposed the national rifle association because they think their right is being taken, but in reality, if we have more gun control, it means less money for them to make.

The federal gun-controlled act and the rifle association don’t care about the people who have life can be taken with one touch of a firearm. We as a society need to do better to help save our community and not just think about our second amendment being taken away.

Children are now being able to get their hands on guns with ease. Children are able to purchase guns, or even have one if they got one. There is not enough restriction on guns, especially in rural areas. Parents are not doing enough job hiding their guns because too many children are being murdered with something that is posted to protect them. A three years old boy shot his two-year sister in the chest by accident in Fort Myers Florida. According to the article by James Forman, JR “Colton found the loaded .25 caliber pistol in a drawer in his parent bedroom where he and Kaile were playing, while their mom was in another room.” Kaile was taken to the hospital where she was pronounced dead. When people think of children with guns, they don’t think about the little Kaile and Colton in the world, they think of the teenager that wants rebels against their parent rules. Having a gun is good and bad at the same time. The thirteen-year-old Jessica would be able to save her and her sibling’s life if she knew the code to her parent’s safe to retrieve the firearm. In the article Children and gun Forman stated “Having been trained by her father, Jessica knew how to use a firearm. There was one problem: the household gun was locked up in compliance with California state law.” [Forman 165] Children having guns is problematic but if that child knows how to use, them and is taught by an adult, they can use them to save their life when an intruder is inside. Most children use guns as entertainment or to gain fame from social media, without even knowing how to use them. after so many accidents with children being taken away communities are protesting, and gathering to find solutions to reducing gun violence, so there won’t be another Kaile or Colton story.

After so many incidents people are advocating for gun control, but they seem not to be able to be on the same page. Bryan Miller advocates for stronger gun control and says that children with a gun are a big problem and that peoples need to do better. They are trying to find a strategic way to make it stronger gun either by educating people or bringing awareness to them. they say we should protect our children and not gun. Having safe storage is a big step because it would more likely stop certain accidents from happening. People should take safety courses that are not online because online you can be scammed. The safety course should include a clear background check, and how to properly handle a weapon, this will ensure that people are qualified a carry a firearm. The course should also include the senseless killing that is happening with gun violence, and how used when you are defending yourself from a robbery. This way it will make homicides and unnecessary usages of firearms reduce. With the long progress of buying a firearm and the gun courses, the firearm will less likely to fall into the wrong person’s hand.

The articles stated that they are also trying to reduce juvenile gun violence, but the media is not making it any better. They believe the key idea to reducing gun violence for children is talking about showing the risk. They have a center where children can get together, read, and write poems to entertain themselves so they won’t go to the wrong crowd. Parent are also doing their part by advocating for gun control, and educating themselves. By making sure the youth is aware of the risks of using a gun, and how they can end their life, or someone else in second children are less likely to go purchases an illegal gun. Creating after-school programs for children in poor areas will reduce gun violence, because with them not having anything to do they usually go do something they have no business doing. Also if all those people they follow in the media showed that taking a ways someone’s life is not glamorous, and it doesn’t make you anything in life, teens are more likely not to buy a firearm.

In my home state gun are considered friendly here which is scary for someone living in a place like this. There are considered as the gun-friendly state is considered because there is no requirement when purchasing a gun. In Tennessee, you don’t need any approval to carry a firearm. You can apply online for a permit with your driver’s license. Nonresidents can also apply as long they have been working in the state for six months. You are only required to do eight hours of training to start using your gun. You can carry a gun in your car. You can have your firearm in public places for example like a restaurant, state parks. In Tennessee, it is legal to carry a handgun, in a vehicle that is privately owned. The minimum age to carry a gun is 18 years old. If there is no sign saying no gun allowed you can bring it with you. If there is a saying stating no weapon inside and you bring it inside you are committing a crime, which will be resulted in some kind of warning, or punishment. The worst part about the rule is people are able to carry to carries guns in their cars, which is the reason why highway shootings are happening every other week. According to WREG news channel 3, “As it turned out, there was more shooting on Memphis highways and interstates in 2019 than previously thought.” We are in the year 2020 and gun control is still an issue. Nowadays you cannot even drive without worrying about someone shooting you, because this is the new normal for users.

Gun control is needed more than ever in America, because of how many peoples there has to be for us to take it seriously. Having strict gun control can save an innocent life from someone with a mental problem who bought a firearm without a transparent background check. Adding restrictions to the current gun policy would help us as a nation to grow and save a life, and make us a safer country at the same time.

Gun Control: Stronger Laws Needed to Prevent Loss of Life

When watching the news, it’s becoming all too common to hear the phrases “active shooter” and “mass casualty”. These types of events such as school and nightclub shootings are becoming a norm and leave many questions about how and why these types of events take place. While the media broadcasts round-the-clock coverage of some of these incidents, there are many more that aren’t televised. Stronger gun control laws tend to come to the forefront and become a popular political topic after a major loss of life incident happens but tend to fade until the next. As American citizens, we have a Second Amendment right to bear arms however as a country I strongly believe we need to enact stronger gun control laws to try and prevent the senseless loss of life in the future.

Enacting stricter gun control laws would help put restrictions in place not only on who can access weapons but what type of weapons and ammo would be available for actual purchase and use. A major area of concern that has been debated heavily is the possession and use of assault weapons. The Las Vegas shooting that occurred in 2017 took the lives of 58 people and wounded over 500 more (Parents of Massacre). This incident was conducted with an AR-15 that had been modified to increase firepower as a primary weapon of choice amongst a variety of other severely lethal weapons made for mass casualty (Bragg). Statistically out of all the mass casualty shootings that have taken place in the United States, a handgun was the most commonly used weapon. After the federal ban on assault rifles expired that was put into place by President Clinton, the use of this type of weapon increased significantly within the last five years and has had a significant contribution to the increasing deadliness of mass shootings (Noriega and Owen).

The anniversary of this shooting each year sparks a conversation surrounding legislation and gun control. Even after the mass shooting that took place, Nevada currently does not have a ban on assault weapons, is an open carry state, and has no waiting period on a gun purchase (Gontcharova). Just recently within the past few hours, the famous musician and rapper Eminem released a surprise album which is a strong cry for gun control. A music video for the song “Darkness” was released with the new album which depicts a reenactment of the Vegas shooting from the point of view of the shooter along with various other references to mass shooting events that have taken place over recent years (Holcombe). This is a verbal and visual outcry to our lawmakers to put forth these necessary stricter regulations.

New York State sprang into action in 2013 and signed into law the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (SAFE) to regulate gun control. One of the major regulations is the ban on assault weapons. These new laws also put forth restrictions on ammunition and a ban on instant background checks (Bragg). While the SAFE Act has put important gun control policies in place, it also has been met with resistance and viewed by some as anti-gun legislation, a violation of the Second Amendment, and unconstitutional. Currently, new amendments to the law are in the process of being passed to enact further restrictions, however, the fight against these laws is taking place as well.

Florida is another state who has seen multiple mass shooting events and more lenient gun laws. Currently, Florida does not have an assault weapon ban, has a waiting period of three days for the purchase of a firearm, and does not require a background check for private sales (Gontcharova). The Florida Senate is working on passing legislation to close what they call the “gun show loophole” regarding regulations around private sales. These new laws would require photo identification for a firearm purchase along with an extensive, notarized questionnaire form completed by the seller, and a background check (Mower). Similar to New York State, Florida is seeing resistance to these new proposed regulations. Pro-gun activists consider these new proposals a violation of their Second Amendment rights. Lawmakers across the nation are divided on the importance of protecting gun rights under the Constitution versus gun control and regulations to protect the citizens of this country (Gramlich and Schaeffer).

Mental health is always brought into question when a mass shooting occurs. While most people who commit a mass shooting show signs beforehand of a form of mental distress, most who are diagnosed with a clinical mental disorder don’t commit violent crimes against others (Akpan). When trying to figure out the “why” of a specific violent event it’s more complicated than one reasonable answer. A study just recently released by the Department of Justice surrounding all mass shooting attacks that have occurred in the United States shows that all shooters had four things in common with each other. While some of the specific commonalities revolve around personal injustices, and traumatic incidents that took place during childhood, one common item that sticks out amongst them all is the easy access to a gun or firearm (Noriega and Owen). This study also concluded that nearly seventy percent of mass casualty shooters were suicidal prior to committing the act and that for people who committed mass shootings in schools, the percentage was higher (Noriega and Owen).

Another factor that is popularly discussed when mass shootings occur is the influence violent video games have on the person or persons committing the violent acts. In 1999, two teenagers named Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris conducted a school shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado killing 13 people and wounding over 20 more. At that time, violent video games were widely blamed for influencing them to commit the shooting however this was never proven to be a major factor (Columbine Shooting). Video games that are violent in nature are commonly played all over the world in mostly all countries. Profits from these video game sales are higher in Japan than in the United States and sales in Britain are equal to sales in the United States. For 1 victim in Japan killed in a homicide-related death, 111 Americans are killed in a gun-related homicide (Klaas). In the United States, the homicide rate involving guns is 73 times higher than in Britain. How can this be possible? The significant difference between these three countries is the access to guns and gun control laws (Klaas). While Britain and Japan have stricter regulations and limited access, the United States is the opposite. Also, states that have higher ownership of guns and more lenient gun laws also have a higher rate of violent mass casualty events than states with stricter gun control laws (Understanding Gun Violence).

Lawmakers have put forth legislation to try and improve gun control across the United States. A proposal was given to enact universal background checks for every gun purchase whether it be a private sale or licensed dealer and would close any private sale loophole that still exists. This bill has an approval rate of 92 percent with American citizens and an 89 percent approval rate with Republicans. This proposal was approved by the Democratic majority House but blocked in the Republican majority Senate (Klaas).

Gun control reform is a widely debated topic across the United States however it is a necessity in order to make America a safer place. While Second Amendment rights are important to protect, it’s also crucial to try and prevent gun-related deaths by enacting stronger laws and restrictions. Regulations regarding weapons of war like assault rifles that are easily accessible to American civilians are critical to the safety of our nation. Studies have proven that the reduction in gun-related deaths in other countries has been linked to stricter gun regulation. While mental health and violent video game exposure are a concern, it’s not the main culprit surrounding the gun-related homicide. The easy accessibility to these weapons is the common denominator. While gun control reform and restrictions might not eliminate gun-related deaths completely, they can significantly reduce senseless loss of life in the future.

In order to hold a defendant liable for a criminal offence, the prosecution not only bears the burden of proving the mens rea but also bears the burden of disproving any defence that can exonerate, reduce or lessen the defendant’s liability. Two such general excusatory defences that can be pleaded in relation to all crimes – insanity and intoxication – will be discussed chronologically along with comparisons and differences being drawn regarding their nature and application.

The defence of insanity is a legal defence that is not reflective of any medical condition and the result of a successful plea of insanity is a finding of not guilty. The criteria for a successful plea of insanity was established in the case M’Naughten (1843), where it has held that the defendant to plea the defence of insanity must labour under a defect of reason that was to arise from a disease of the mind which impaired his ability to know the nature and quality of his act. The criteria have to be proved by the defendant on the balance of probabilities. To satisfy the first criterion, the defendant must prove that he suffered from a defect of reason or, in other words, was deprived of his power to reason. This is a relatively high standard to meet as mere distraction or absentmindedness will not suffice. The second criterion is to suffer from a disease of the mind, but in this case, it need not be a recognized medical condition. A disease of the mind in legal terms was thought to be a disease affecting the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding, and must arise from an internal cause. Furthermore, there are additional elements that could help the defendant in gaining a successful plea. This is regarding the nature and quality of the defendant’s act and would require the defence to show that D was unable to recognize what he was physically doing and the physical consequences of that.

Moving on to intoxication, it is a defence established by common law principles based on the inability to form the men’s rea of the criminal offence. Such a condition must be caused due to the influence of soporific substances such as alcohol, drugs, and prescription drugs that lower the inhibitions. Two types of intoxication were proposed by the courts, and thus the courts have created different rules in regard to involuntary/voluntary intoxication. A defendant will be classed as involuntarily intoxicated if he is not aware that he is consuming an intoxicant. In other words, if his drink is being spiked. Furthermore, in the case of Hardie, it was also stated that involuntary intoxication extends to someone voluntarily taking drugs not knowing about the soporific effect it is supposed to have. However, it is to be kept in mind that in involuntary intoxication, where the defendant holds the mens rea of the crime, they would not be given a defence. When a defendant is voluntarily intoxicated, that is, taking a soporific substance of his own free will, the effect of the plea depending on the element of mens rea becomes complicated. When it comes to a specific intent offence, lack of mens rea will cause the verdict for the defendant to be not guilty. However, if a basic intent alternative offence is available, such as murder or manslaughter, he may be convicted of that offence. The question to be asked to the jury in such a scenario is whether the defendant would have formed the mens rea if he was sober. If the answer results in a yes, then the defendant may be convicted.

In light of the above discussion, we can see that intoxication and insanity are two very contrasting defences. Although there is one common element in regards to the nature of both of them. It is the defect of reason. However, both arise from different grounds. In insanity, it arises from a disease of the mind, whereas in intoxication it arises from the influence of a soporific substance. The effect of a successful plea under insanity usually results in a special verdict of not guilty, whereas in intoxication the mens rea is an important element and intent, such as basic or specific form, an important part of the judgement. Thus, it can be said that although general and excusatory defences both are widely contrasting in their nature and application.

The legal defence of ‘insanity’ states that the defendant is not capable of committing a crime as the individual is not aware of the nature or the quality of the act he has committed. Insanity is establishing that the mens rae (guilty mind) was in the individual’s control and if the act was his intention at the time of the offence and not the trial. It is only available as a defence in a murder charge.

Using the defence of insanity often increases the cost and length of a trial. Defence attorneys need to obtain experts that are able to spend time with the defendant in order to evaluate their past medical records and potentially give their testimony twice. Attorneys may not have the time or the resources to obtain past medical records to analyse whether the defendant will be a successful candidate for the use of insanity as a legal defence (Tindula, 2016).

Insanity, however, is now rarely used as a defence for a number of reasons. When it has been used in trials, it is rarely successful. A study by the US National Institute of Mental Health in eight US states found that the defence was filed in less than 1 per cent of all felony cases. Of those cases where the defence is successful in a small proportion of the cases.

In those rare cases when the insanity defence is successful, the defendant is admitted to a mental institute or a psychiatric hospital. The institution specializes in the treatment of serious mental disorders, such as severe depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. The aim of treatment is to rehabilitate an individual to return to society. The disadvantage of admitting a defendant into a psychiatric hospital is that it is much more restrictive than a general prison, as well as there is the possibility that the defendant will be held indefinitely.

The diminished responsibility defence has caused the insanity defence to be used even less. The legislation (the Coroners and Justice Act 2009), introduced in the Homicide Act 1957, states that individuals who kill another or are a part of it cannot be convicted of murder if the defendant was suffering from an abnormal mental functioning that’s caused by a recognised medical condition, making them unable to form rational judgements or exercise self-control. It explains the defendant’s acts or omissions that contributed to the killing.

In general, all of the above explains why insanity as a legal defence is now rarely used.