Day 28 (March 24) Introduction to Criminal Law

Day 28 (March 24) Introduction to Criminal Law 

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."

Then my Intro Lecture on 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.

The Witch Trial

Syllogism - tool in reasoning in which applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are assumed to be true.  

All As are Cs.

All Bs are As.

Therefore all Bs are Cs.

Example: 

All cats (A) are animals (C).

All lions (B) are cats (A).

Therefore all lions (B) are animals (C).

Similar, but in this case untrue, is this example.

All cats (A) are animals (C).

All lions (B) are animals (C).

Therefore all cats (A) are lions (B).

Another logical fallacy:

All ghosts are imaginary.

All unicorns are imaginary.

Therefore all ghosts are unicorns.

This is the type of argument made by Monty Python in their witch trial.

Breakdown of the Argument 

1. All witches are things that can burn. 

2. All things that can burn are made of wood. 

3. Therefore, all witches are made of wood. (from 1 & 2) 

4. All things that are made of wood are things that can float. 

5. All things that weigh as much as a duck are things that can float. 

6. So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood. (from 4 & 5) 

7. Therefore, all witches are things that weigh as much as a duck. (from 3 & 6) 

8. This thing is a thing that weighs as much as a duck. 

9. Therefore, this thing is a witch. (from 7 & 8) 

Analysis of the Argument 

There are actually four arguments being made here. Lines (3), (6), (7) and (9) are all 
conclusions, with (9) being the main conclusion of the argument. Let’s take them one at a time. 

The first argument: 
1. All witches are things that can burn. 
2. All things that can burn are made of wood. 
3. Therefore, all witches are made of wood. 
This is a valid argument. That is, (3) really does follow logically from (1) and (2). That’s not to say that it’s an especially convincing argument because premise (2) is rather obviously false. Still, if (2) were true, then the conclusion would have to be true as well. So this step is valid but unsound. 

The second argument: 
4. All things that are made of wood are things that can float. 
5. All things that weigh as much as a duck are things that can float. 
6. So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood. 
This argument commits the fallacy of the undistributed middle. The structure of the 
argument is the old familiar:
All A is C. 
All B is C. 
Therefore, all A is B. 


And that, of course, is not a valid argument. 

The third argument: 

3. Therefore, all witches are made of wood. 

6. So all things that weigh as much as a duck are things that are made of wood. 

7. Therefore, all witches are things that weigh as much as a duck. 

This argument has the same problem as the second argument. It’s also an undistributed middle (i.e. the middle argument, 6, is not true).

The fourth argument: 

7. Therefore, all witches are things that weigh as much as a duck. 

8. This thing is a thing that weighs as much as a duck. 

9. Therefore, this thing is a witch. 

Yes, once again, it’s an undistributed middle. 

How is our legal system similar to this?