DAY 54 (Apr 29) End of the Latimer Case and Beginning of Trial Procedures

We viewed the rest of the CBC News in Review clip on the Latimer case and then had a look at the issue from the perspective of the CCD (Council for Canadians with Disabilities) and this handout:

THE LATIMER CASE: The Disabled Speak Out
It begins as follows:

In the View of numerous groups representing the interests of disabled Canadians, Robert Latimer’s killing of his daughter was not only murder but a precedent that signalled danger for all disabled people. The public sympathy that was bestowed on him increased their concerns about the public’s attitude toward disabled people.





COURTHOUSE VISIT
Because we are visiting the Superior Court of Ontario on Monday we spent some time looking at how courtrooms operate so that you have a better understanding of what we'll see at the courthouse.

Adversarial System - it's a bit like a game with one winner - the prosecution (The Crown representative of the people of Canada or the country itself) must prove the guilt of the accused.  The interests of one side generally are quite the opposite of the interests of the other side.  To win, the Crown must prove both Actus Reus (wrongful deed) and Mens Rea (criminal intent, or guilty mind) BEYOND a reasonable doubt.

The Judge - ensures a fair trial for the accused.  Judges have full control over the courtroom.  In cases without a jury the judge will decide guilt or innocence.

Crown Attorney - (you will recognize this person as the "District Attorney" or "D.A." in Law and Order or other American legal dramas).  The burden of proof is on the Crown to prove guilt and to ensure that justice is done.

Defence Counsel - represent the accused at trial to ensure that the legal rights of the accused are protected and that a proper defence is provided.

Court Clerk and Court Recorder - the clerk handles the witnesses, swears them in, reads the charges, handles evidence and paperwork when necessary.  The recorder actually records every word spoken in the court.  This is important because we need a record of the trial and evidence might have to be read back at a later time during the trial.

Sheriff - ensures that the accused shows up and he/she can assist the judge.

DAY 53 (Apr 28) The Latimer Case

Here is a link to the Courthouse Field Trip Permission Form.  Please bring in your fee and permission form asap.

Today we looked at the Latimer Case: Murder or Mercy?

First we looked at the handout, The Latimer Case, and we answered the four questions that I pose in the handout.  Each group led a 5 minute class discussion on the topics raised by this disturbing case.

Then we watched the CBC News in Review clip of the case.  The question that keep coming up when we study Law is, "Is Justice Being Served?"  This is one of those rare cases where Ethics and the Law do not necessarily meet on equal terms.

I also distributed Robert Latimer's Confession and four precedent cases relevant to the Latimer case - we'll deal with these tomorrow in detail.

Day 52 April 27 Homicide and the Criminal Code

Today we had some fun looking at the Criminal Code and the issue of Homicide, as covered in ss.222+ in the Criminal Code (CC).

All parts of the CC are structured the same way.  In the section on Homicide it starts with a definition of Homicide: s. 222  " . . . a person causes, directly or indirectly, by any means, the death of a human being."

This rules out, say, killing any other animal as homicide - it's not killing a person.  Although unlawfully killing an animal is a crime as well, just covered in another section of the CC.

It goes on to say the Homicide can be either culpable or non-culpable - culpability is guilt or criminal responsibility.  And remember, that Actus Reus and Mens Rea must be present for culpability in this case.

For our purposes we'll look at Murder now, s. 229.  Again, it starts with a definition:
'Culpable homicide is murder when you mean to cause another's death or mean to cause bodily harm to another that you know is likely to cause the death.'  There are more stipulations, but that's the jist of it.

You can also commit Murder (see it's definition in s. 229 above) is you kill someone while committing another serious offense.  This is in s. 230, "Murder in the Commission of Offences."   The list of other offenses includes:
 - Treason
 - Piracy
- Hijacking
 - Escaping prison
 - Assaulting a peace officer (e.g. police)
- Sexual Assault
-  Robbery
- Breaking & Entering
- Arson

Then they classify murder as either 1st or 2nd degree and define each:
1st Degree =
- Planned and Deliberate
- Contract for killing
- Murder of a peace officer (e.g. jail guard, police, etc.)
- Hijacking, Sexual Assault, Kidnapping
- Murder during terrorist activity
- Using explosives in association with a criminal gang

2nd Degree = if it's not on the list above (but still murder) then it's 2nd Degree Murder.

When does the CC reduce homicide from murder to Manslaughter?
Culpable homicide that would otherwise be murder is manslaughter if the person committing it did so in the heat of passion or by sudden provocation.

Of course the CC then provides definitions for "heat of passion" and "sudden provocation".

Infanticide (s. 233) - defined as ' . . . a female causes the death of her newborn baby - if she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth and therefore her mind is disturbed.'


Then the CC outlines the Punishments:
1st Degree = Life in Prison (no parole for 25 years)
2nd Degree = Life in Prison (judges will decide on years until parole eligibility, often parole can be in 10 years)
Manslaughter = Life in Prison (judges have great leeway in deciding upon eligibility for parole)
Infanticide = maximum five years on jail

Counselling or Aiding in Suicide = maximum 14 years in jail

DAY 43 (Apr 12) Last Day for Submissions

In order to get the last bits of work in we spent the period in Lab 309 - most of you have now submitted all work that needs to be marked for the upcoming mid-terms reports.  Well done!  I should have updated marks including your recent test by Thursday.  Tomorrow we'll continue with Criminal Law.

Day 42 (Apr 11) Test 1 Intro to Law

Using the R. v. Feeney case as the basis for this test you spent the period writing a short six paragraph paper outlining two ways to challenge the police's actions and two ways to support the police's actions.

DAY 41 (Apr 7) Test Review for Test 1 - Intro to Law and Your Rights

Today is a review day - here are some of the highlights . . .  your test is on Monday and it will consist of one case study in which you will need to examine BOTH sides of the issue.  To do so you must quote the Charter of Rights and the Criminal Code (I'll give you both and the Criminal Code sections that I give you will be very short).  I'll also add a couple of general questions re: human rights.

Chapter 1 - see the review on pp. 34 - 35.

Current Law is often based on older laws, e.g. Hammurabi, Mosaic, Napoleonic Code, etc.

Precedents are when a judge refers to an earlier case and then he/she must decide the current case in a similar way (when similar facts are presented).

Civil Rights are your rights when dealing with the government.

Please see the rest of the review section - you don't need to write down answers for the questions but certainly review them.


Chapter 2 - see the review on pp. 68 - 69
The rights and freedoms in the Charter are not unlimited or absolute - they are subject to limitations that must be reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic country like Canada.  This is s. 1 of the Charter, known as the "limitations clause".

Although our elected officials in Ottawa write and rewrite laws, it is the Supreme Court of Canada that interprets the rights and freedoms as outlined in the Charter.

You should be generally familiar with the freedoms and rights in the Charter, e.g.:
Conscience
Religion
Thought
Belief
Opinion
Expression
The Press and other Media of Communication

Democratic Rights
Mobility Rights

Legal Rights are spelled out clearly too:
Life, Liberty and Security of the Person
To be secure against unreasonable search and seizure
Not to be detained or held in jail without just cause
Upon arrest - to be informed of the reason, to get a lawyer, to see a judge to ensure that the arrest is legal (habeas corpus)

If charged with an offense you have a long list of rights (s.11) - note that one of them is the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

You have the right to NOT be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment or treatment (s.12)

Equality Rights - specifically you cannot be discriminated against because of  . . . .:
Race
National or Ethnic Origin
Colour
Religion
Sex
Age
Mental or Physical Disability

One of the remedies that the Charter provides includes striking down a law that violates the Charter.

You should be able to explain the importance and function of the "limitations clause" (s.1).
Again, please review the questions on pp. 68-69 but don't necessarily answer each one in writing.

Chapter 3 Review, pp. 108-109.
Anything that prevents you from participating fully in society is a barrier - and we have laws, including the Charter, that aim to prevent this from happening.

The Persons Case (1929) established that women were legal persons in Canada.

Women continue to fight for equal pay and equal opportunity in the workforce.

Same-sex couples are now allowed to marry and enjoy all of the benefits of marriage including adopting

Sue Rodriguez - wanted to commit suicide but was physically unable.  She need the help of someone to end her own life.  This is illegal in Canada (suicide is not, however).  This raised the issue freedom of choice, cruel and unusual treatment.

In addition, we looked at the R. v. Ford Case - the father stole insulin to save his daughter - he had no other way to get it.  Our treatment of this highlighted three interpretations of law:
1. Positivist = interpreting the law based on the "letter of the law", seeing it in "black and white terms" without regard to outside circumstances.

2. Natural Law = people who follow a religion will consider these beliefs as part of the natural world, or the natural order of things much the same as nature will take it's course and you'll die if you are deprived of oxygen (remember the three guys stuck in a cave?).

3. Realism = judges will consider circumstances when judging a case, for example if someone was in economic straits, or if someone was in mental turmoil, etc.

Again, please look at the review section for Chapter 3, pp 108-109.

Also, you should be reviewing or skimming through your entire notebook a few times a week, including this weekend of course, so that you're familiar with everything we've covered thus far.

DAY 40 (Apr 6) Last Day for Lab Work on Crimes Around the World

We were in the Library Lab to complete work on your Google presentations.  Please make sure to change the share setting on your presentation to allow anyone with the link to view.  Then copy the web address into an email or invite me as a guest (sounds so civilized).

DAY 38 & 39 (Apr 4, 5) Crimes Around the World

In my absence you are booked into Lab 212 for both days.  I have assigned this project to be due at the beginning of class on Wednesday.

How Countries Treat Crimes Around the World.
Crimes Around the World Marking Sheet.

Day 37 (Apr 1) Introduction to Criminal Law Lecture

Today we spent some time looking at the CBC News In Review story about the natural gas explosion at the Mexican resort in 2008 in which seven people died, five of whom were Canadian.  Although a modern country, Mexico has a problem with corruption and it would appear that this was part of the cause of the explosion - building codes were not followed and a ruptured gas line, a gas line that was not authorized on the blueprints of the resort, leaked gas in the space below the building and finally ignited causing a major explosion.  This law minute of the day is a good way to introduce the idea that the general public needs to be protected from crimes, even crimes that are "hidden in the ground."

We spent the rest of the class looking at my lecture on an Introduction to Criminal Law.

In case you missed it or in if you would like further clarification on your notes, here are some main points from the lecture:

The Law exists to:      Protect society & individuals

                                    Establish rules of conduct

                                    Keep the peace

                                    Punish offenders

                                    Protect rights and freedoms

What is a Crime?

Parliament decides what is a crime and it passes laws accordingly. 

A action that we consider a crime reflects societal values, e.g. Marijuana reform.   

Because different people have different values and beliefs, we establish that these  

FOUR CONDITIONS must exist in order for an action or omission to be considered a crime:

1. The Action must harm other people or entities and the harm must be serious in nature and degree.
2. The action violates the basic values of society.
3. Using law to deal with the action must not violate the basic values of society.
4. Criminal law can make a significant contribution to resolving the problem.

Also, these TWO ELEMENTS must exist for an action to be a criminal offense: actus reus & mens rea.  Because the Charter sec 11(d) says that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty the Crown attorney must prove both of these beyond a reasonable doubt.

ELEMENTS of a Crime

1. Actus Reus:     wrongful action (committing the act of the crime)
2. Mens Rea:       wrongful mind (intention to commit the crime), or that the offense is committed with i.) intent or knowledge  or ii.) recklessness.
1. Intent or Knowledge: Intent is the true purpose of the action, or what a reasonable person would be thinking under the circumstances.
2. General Intent: the person has no other criminal purpose in mind, e.g. assault or trespass (it has to be shown only that the person did apply force or was on someone else’s property) no need to prove mens rea.
3. Knowledge: knowing certain facts can provide the necessary mens rea, e.g. using an expired credit card or someone else’s credit card.
4. Recklessness: careless disregard for the possible results of an action.  People who act recklessly do not necessarily intend to cause harm, no matter.

Day 36 (Mar 31) Political Parties' Platforms on Crime

Because of the Literacy Test we were in the lab today.  I asked everyone to examine the political platforms on crime of the five major political parties running in the current federal election.

DAY 35 (Mar 30) Gang Problems (and the Witch Hunt)

Today we spent time looking at how and why gangs can cause major problems for our society and how we respond to them.

We started by examining Monty Python's classic Witch Trial from the Quest for the Holy Grail.  Here's a YouTube link to the Witch Trial.  Then we examined what we saw by discussing the Ye Olde Witche Trial handout.

We then watched a video about gangs in Canada (it's on a DVD and I cannot post it here) and then we examined the issue based on the handout, Gang Wars Knowledge Chart.