Mistake of fact and law defenses in criminal liability scenarios

Legal Issues and Accountability

If the doctrines of Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law exist in Fun Land as they do in the United States, I actually believe that my defense would turn out successfully. The fact of the matter is that I was a stranger in a foreign land and there was no way that I could know that consuming a Pepsi was illegal -- without actually consuming one and getting arrested for it. If the facts were changed to prove that I thought the Pepsi were a Coke, a better defense would be that I was deceived and truly not aware of transgressing the law -- which is related to the aforementioned doctrines (Vukovic, 2014).

I actually do agree with the balance that exists in the U.S. Constitution about the balance between the defendant and society that has shifted towards the defendant. I do not think that there are too many protections given to the accused, for the simple fact that anyone can get accused of anything -- regardless of whether or not he or she did the crime. Thus, it is necessary for the accused to have the right to an expedient and fair trial, as well as to legal counsel. I would not make any changes about this tendency.

UNIT 6 DISCUSSION

I would argue in favor of the bill. The arguments that I would make to do so is that stiff punishments would help deter people from committing this particular crime. The counter-arguments I would anticipate are that people shot the Bugs Bunny by accident. Therefore, the magnitude of the sentences disseminate for this offense should stop people from shooting had they any doubts. Personally, I would not want to amend the bill. The one word I would change to make the bill less draconian is to insert the word 'knowingly' before possesses. Doing so could make the bill more egalitarian.

UNIT 7 DISCUSSION

It greatly appears as though Tom is the one who caused the boulder to fall, and should be criminally liable for the death of Jerry. He set up a deadly situation, and despite the fact that he later one renounced his plan, he did not fully disarm this weapon which was still fatal. However, were I using the notion of causation to defend Tom, I would state that he did not cause Jerry's death because he did not directly cause the boulder to fall. In fact, another individual was the direct cause of the boulder's fatal fall, proving Tom's innocence.

UNIT 9 DISCUSSION

In the 1980's, John Hinckley was found insane and therefore not guilty of attempting to assassinate -- and wounding -- then- President Ronald Reagan (Hans and Slater, 1983). The facts were that Hinckley truly believed that by assassinating the President he could impress actress Jodie Foster, with whom he was obsessed. It largely seems as though the courts applied the Irresistible Impulse test since it was determined that Hinckley was so preoccupied with cultivating Foster's affections that he could not resist shooting the President. Moreover, he could not distinguish the fact that he was committing a crime in 'impressing' the actress.