Unlawful for both Kurt and Janis. As the drug

Unlawful act manslaughter is a very extensive offence
which requires proof of four elements such as, d act must be intentional, the
act must be unlawful, the act must be objectively dangerous, finally the act
must cause death but not be directed. 1.
for instance, the drugs are very dangerous behavior which all the societies
want to try it even the teenagers. There are many cases that talks about the unlawful
act and for example, in Franklin 1883 which the criminal here is robbery, both the actus
rues and mens rea elements must be established which the tort is not enough. Two of the friends Kurt and Janis gradually developed the form of
interest in adapting the habit of consuming drugs as Keith and Ginger are found
to indulge in. it is due to the increased influence of the habits that Keith
and Ginger were indulged in that acted as strong precursors to be determining
them to undergo the same kind of experience. They tend to get distressed much
easily when not able to cope up through their personal as well as professional
lives. However, this habit of resorting to practices act as an easy way of
escape which allows them to confront the difficult life situations much simply2.

Keith’s liability for the deaths of Kurt and Janis

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

It
was Keith who seemed to instigate the initiative of indulging Janis and Kurt
into such activities of taking in drugs. Keith has been long observed and
followed while practicing the habit of taking in drug injections. The process
of injecting the drugs within self is found to be quite easy by Kurt as the
observation took place for quite a long time3. Kurt
was pretty confident about injecting the drug needle into her arms. On the
contrary although Janis has also observed Keith for the same span of time
indulging in such drug inducing activities but found it difficult to implement
the process. Janis was found to be very afraid of needles hence does not find
it comfortable to inject the heroin through this procedure. Keith has taken an
active initiative in preparing the heroin dose for both her friends who are yet
to experience the pleasure of being under the external control of drug dosage. Janis
and Kurt were both interested in engaging in the habit of drug taking practice4. It
was through the unfortunate incidence that Keith made a severe mistake in
contaminating the drug while preparing it for both Kurt and Janis. As the drug
was prepared for both injections of Kurt as well as Janis the effects were
bound to be same. Due to the injections being contaminated the consequences
faced by Kurt and Janis was fatal in nature and both of them underwent the
experience of death.

It
is most likely that a legal proceeding is expected in regard to the entire
episode of unfortunate events. As Keith is the person to be held guilty and
shall be put to accusation position for the consequence taking place. In order
to prove the guilty as the real accused it is necessary to construct a
reasonable intent for the event taken place. Regarding this, the case of Church
1966 which it was held that the unlawful act must be such as all sober and
reasonable people would recognise must subject the other person to at least the
danger of some harm. Also, the case in Kennedy 2007 which a
man asks the defendant to supply him with heroin the defendant agree and gave
him the heroin V died by inhalation of stomach contents while very drunk by
opiates and alcohol which it was held the injection itself was the result of a
voluntary and informed decision by the person injecting himself. If the person who is regarded as the suspect is proved to be
voluntarily engaged in act of intoxication the crime charges shall only be
applied if the specific intent is attached. The jury in the court shall
question the accused to evaluate his or her state of intoxication while
conducting the event5. The
prosecution is found to charge where a clear motive behind the act is
confirmed. In the present case although a sheer liability lies in course of
preparing the drug in such a manner that it got contaminated but the accusation
shall not hold strength as a significant intent may not be found. The lack of
properly structured and concrete intent regarding the in relation with the
current issue taken place shall result in proving the fact that Keith is
directly responsible for the deaths. It can thus be regarded as a serious case
of ignorance and reluctance which needs to be treated as a punishable offense. In
order to project a concrete murder case against the accused a clear intent and
the state of intoxication of the guilty are the two mainly significant areas of
determinants6.
These are the prime prerequisites on the basis of which Keith may be freed from
the liability of accused of murder of her friends Kurt and Janis.

Ginger’s liability for Lenny’s death

Ginger
has been indulged into the similar activities as that of Keith with respect to
the consumption of drugs. It is found that they were heavily under the
influence of drug abuse which automatically acted as a strong cause of
transference of interests among the others of the group. Kurt and Janis who was
initially free from such kind of drug practice indulgence gradually developed
the form of inclination. Ginger tries to confront the person responsible for
providing the drug that day. Lenny is a person who has approached his 60s to be
able to get to the root of the cause7. The
heroin that was provided to Kurt and Janis was found to be contaminated which
ultimately resulted in the fatal consequence of the two of their friends. While
Keith tries to dispose the bodies to be able to escape from the situation
easily Ginger tries to confront the person supplying the contaminated drugs8. As
the meeting of the two, Lenny and Ginger was not expected to a pleasant one,
they ended up in an unfavorable fight. On such an encounter Ginger became
enraged which results in slamming Lenny harshly over the desk. On having a
chronic cardiac condition Lenny was prone to strike the death cord on being hit
hard upon the desk. This automatically generates a legal proceeding in context
with their approach to deal with the unfortunate circumstances. Relating to
this Rogers 2003 which D applied the heroin on V arms and injected himself,
the court of appeal held that the defendant could be guilty of unlawful act
manslaughter where he held a tourniquet around the victim’s arm Ginger was to
be accused under the governance of law that he has taken the responsibility
into his own hands without involving the law to confront the person responsible
for supplying such a contaminated drug9. The
prosecutor is necessary to prove the intent and the voluntary willingness to
conduct a murder. The murder can be prepared or accidental in nature the
prosecutor needs to prove the basic intent which is a significant one in the
present case. Here the intent of Lenny was clear to confront the person who
should be blamed fundamentally for the misfortune to take place. Hence this
resulted in an accidental consequence where Lenny became the target of the
raging outburst of Ginger in context of losing two of his friends. Ginger
therefore falls under the liability to be convicted.

Conclusion

It
can be inferred that crime of every sort has some amount of liability attached
to it. The degree of liability might differ with severity of the consequences. The
intent of the crime taken place needs to be proved strongly and evidently in
relation with the person accused. Ginger is therefore found to be guilty for
accidentally causing fatal harm towards Lenny for providing contaminated drugs.
Keith on the other understanding the fact that such an inappropriate
circumstance took place tried to cover the situation by disposing the dead
bodies. Other than the legal liabilities the social paradigm also needs to be
taken under consideration in course of dealing which such sensitive issues. The
youth is closely related with the proneness towards becoming indulged in drug
abuse activities. However even if the intent of the person being accused is not
proved to be valid enough it is subjected to the jurisdiction of the court to
decide that indulging others into the unethical practices shall be granted as
serious offense or not. The court is to prove the severity of the crime taken
place by themi.
The prosecutor needs to reaffirm on the fact that the intent related with each
of significant events needs to be prominently identified which shall enable the
process of determining the extent of exact liability for both Keith as well as
Ginger.

1 Gallupe, Owen,
and Stephen W. Baron. “Morality, self-control, deterrence, and drug use:
Street youths and situational action theory.” Crime &
Delinquency 60, no. 2 (2014): 284-305.

 

2 Lynch, Michael
J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael A. Long. “What Is Crime?.”
In Defining Crime, pp. 27-55. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2015.

 

3 Bean,
Philip. Drugs and crime. Routledge, 2014.

 

4 Strathdee,
Steffanie A., Leo Beletsky, and Thomas Kerr. “HIV, drugs and the legal
environment.” International Journal of Drug Policy 26
(2015): S27-S32.

 

5 Carpenter,
Christopher, and Carlos Dobkin. “The minimum legal drinking age and
crime.” Review of economics and statistics 97, no. 2
(2015): 521-524.

 

6 Reid, Sue
Titus. Crime and criminology. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business,
2015.

 

7 Kadish, Sanford
H., Stephen J. Schulhofer, and Rachel E. Barkow. Criminal law and its
processes: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2016.

 

8 Kaplan, John,
Robert Weisberg, and Guyora Binder. Criminal law: Cases and materials.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2014.

 

9Butcher, James N., Jill M. Hooley, and Susan M.
Mineka. Abnormal psychology. Pearson Higher Ed, 2015.

 

i
Eck, John E., and David L.
Weisburd. “Crime places in crime theory.” (2015).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference list

Eck, John E., and David L. Weisburd.
“Crime places in crime theory.” (2015).

Butcher, James N., Jill M. Hooley, and Susan M.
Mineka. Abnormal psychology. Pearson Higher Ed, 2015.

Kadish, Sanford H., Stephen J. Schulhofer, and
Rachel E. Barkow. Criminal law and its processes: cases and materials.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2016.

Kaplan, John, Robert Weisberg, and Guyora
Binder. Criminal law: Cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law &
Business, 2014.

Seear, Kate, and Suzanne Fraser. “The
addict as victim: Producing the ‘problem’of addiction in Australian victims of
crime compensation laws.” International Journal of Drug Policy 25,
no. 5 (2014): 826-835.

Reid, Sue Titus. Crime and criminology.
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2015.

Weisburd, David, and Shai Amram. “The law
of concentrations of crime at place: the case of Tel Aviv-Jaffa.” Police
Practice and Research 15, no. 2 (2014): 101-114.

Carpenter, Christopher, and Carlos Dobkin.
“The minimum legal drinking age and crime.” Review of
economics and statistics 97, no. 2 (2015): 521-524.

Strathdee, Steffanie A., Leo Beletsky, and
Thomas Kerr. “HIV, drugs and the legal environment.” International
Journal of Drug Policy 26 (2015): S27-S32.

Bean, Philip. Drugs and crime.
Routledge, 2014.

Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and
Michael A. Long. “What Is Crime?.” In Defining Crime, pp.
27-55. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2015.

Gallupe, Owen, and Stephen W. Baron.
“Morality, self-control, deterrence, and drug use: Street youths and
situational action theory.” Crime & Delinquency 60,
no. 2 (2014): 284-305.

 

 

x

Hi!
I'm Homer!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out