Looking at Criminal Cases of Today

¶ … criminal case, People v. Herbert. The key issue highlighted in this paper will be causation.

Causation

For instance, a bothersome but often disregarded enigma outlines modern sociological clarifications of causation of crime. While a number of sociologists explain crime as though it were uncontrollable or abnormal and therefore, "strange" behavior, a majority of them concurrently agree to the famous statement by Durkheim, describing crime as behavior that is "normal." An analysis of the Durkheimian crime causation theory proves it to be fraught with numerous significant logical weaknesses (Cohen and Machalek, 1994). Ironically, in spite of the theoretician being known to promulgate an essentially sociological view of crime, he ultimately turns to individual features, instead of social facts, for determining the underlying reason for crime. The present-day evolutionary game theory (EGT) offers a different explanation of crime's normalcy, while steering clear of the deficits suffered by the traditional Durkheimian model. EGT is ecological-based, and justifies "expropriative" crime's occurrence as being an offshoot of normal social organizational patterns and social interaction processes. Moreover, this alternative approach effectively describes, within a single theoretical frame, the relationship between major micro- and macro- level factors accountable for expropriative crime patterns.

The Case

The case in question, People v. Herbert charged the defendant, Henry Hebert with murder. The defendant, whose case was fought by a public defender, denied the offense and, following a jury trial, was found guilty of unintentional murder, a lesser crime. He was denied probation and incarcerated in state prison (People v. Hebert:::: California Court of Appeal Decisions:: California Case Law:: California Law:: U.S. Law:: Justia). Defendant appealed to court 'in pro-per'. He was at a Venetian bar, only drinking but not inebriated, when Swallow came in at around 11 p.m. All eye witnesses claim that the deceased, Swallow looked ill or intoxicated and the barmaid denied him service. Swallow seated himself near the defendant; a quarrel broke out between the two men (People v. Hebert:::: California Court of Appeal Decisions:: California Case Law:: California Law:: U.S. Law:: Justia). Witnesses claim that Herbert stood and fisted Swallow's face -- the latter remained seated. The assault took place without any incitement.

Officers claim, during booking and immediately after searching Swallow, that when he stood against the wall with hands held high, he fell over backwards, arms falling to the sides, entirely rigid, like a "plank falling"; he fell bottom-first onto the floor, followed by his head, which bounced once (around six inches) and struck the concrete floor (covered with asphalt tiles) once again. Instantaneously, one of his ears began to bleed, followed by the second, within some seconds (People v. Hebert:::: California Court of Appeal Decisions:: California Case Law:: California Law:: U.S. Law:: Justia). Swallow was hospitalized, and died within a few hours, before the next morning. The trial's determinative question was whether Herbert's act of hitting and knocking Swallow to the ground proximately caused death.

Conclusion of Case