Criminal liability analysis under Mississippi statutory law

¶ … Victim: Four Case Studies

Case

Under the given circumstances, Sam should be charged with murder. Although he did make the prior effort to make sure the neighbors were not too close, the fact is clear -- a fire is extremely dangerous. He had no idea that there were squatters in the house; yet, that does not mean the act of lighting a fire was not a dangerous one. According to the Mississippi Code of 1972, Section 97-3-19, a crime can be considered murder even "when done in the commission of an act eminately dangerous to others and evincing a depraved heart, regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to affect the death of any particular individual." Even if there was no one in the house, a fire fighter may have been killed or injured batting the blaze, and thus Sam's actions clearly would allow for a murder charge.

Case 3

It may have looked quite suspicious to the officer passing by when Jimmy was breaking in to a residence. Yet, Jimmy was breaking into his own residence. It was not someone else's house, nor was there someone else inside who had purposely locked him out for their safety or well being. Jimmy simply locked himself out and needed a way to get back in. As long as he could show proper documentation of his residence, the officer should not have any grounds to charge him with any crime. There should be no charges filed here because he would be the individual to press charges on someone who would have been breaking in. He had no choice but to try to enter his own house because he did not have his keys. Although, if he was renting, the landlord could possibly charge him with vandalism or damage to property if he did commence in breaking anything that can not be replaced during his attempt at breaking into his own house.

Case 4

Fraud and forgery are serious matters in Mississippi, as in any other state. Yet, the case presented here does not fall under the statute's description of a crime. It is forgery to sign someone else's name. Yet, Beth had asked Danny to do so. Here, Section 75-5-109 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 suggests that "a beneficiary, issuer or nominated person who may be adversely affected is adequately protected against loss that it may suffer because the relief is granted."

Beth's permission shows that she was not worried about a loss r that she would be negatively affected by his actions. Their marriage also gives greater strength because it shows a legal binding relationship that establishes a great sense of trust between Danny and Beth. Thus, Beth's permission is crucial to determining that no legal action should be taken against Danny for signing her name.