DAY 41 - A Close Look at 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

Now it's your turn - go to the online Criminal Code of Canada.

Draw a table and describe what is found in each of these sections of the CC as explained in class:

Sections 1, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 43, 45, 46, 47, 57, 59, 63, 64, 64, 71, 72, 73, 76, 77, 83, 83.01 - 83.04, 85, 90, 119, 120, 131, 132, 144, 150.1, 151, 152, 153, 155, 159, 160, 163.1, 210, 212, 213, 222, 223, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 241, 247, 252, 253, 255, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 271, 273, 287, 322, 334, 343, 344, 348, 433, 434, 437, 445.1, 

DAY 39 - Criminal Law and Politics

Link to Shared Political Parties and Crime Platforms

Day 35 (Oct 22) 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 31 - Human Rights in Canada Wrap Up and Review for First Test

First you presented your Human Rights in Canada work.

Then we started test review as follows:

CLU3M    Intro to Law Test Review, the test will be on TUESDAY (changed from our initial date of Monday).

This test will encompass everything we have covered in the course so far.  No detailed information about the section on the history of law will be required on the test as this is being dealt with in your projects.  For study purposes in this or any other course, the most effective course of action is to review your class notes and textbook headings each day.  For final preparation for this test you should review the following topics in detail (Chapters 1-3):

1.  What is law?

2.  Why do we have laws?

3.  Explain the difference between rules and laws.

4.  Explain three main functions of what laws do for us.

5.  What is the “Rule of Law” and how does it function within society?  How does the rule of law ensure a just and fair system of law in Canada?

6.  Briefly, how are laws created in Canada (stages that a bill goes through).

7.  Using an example for each, explain the philosophies: positivism, realism, natural law.

8.  Hobbes said that without government, “Life would be cold, nasty, brutish, and short.”  Explain. 

9.  State whether or not you agree with this statement: People are basically bad so they need laws and punishments to control them.

10.      The American Declaration of Independence (1776) states that all men [people] “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . . these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Why was such a statement so revolutionary?

11.      In simplest terms, what is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?  What does it guarantee? (Main areas that it covers).

12.      Why is the Charter significant to Canada?

13.      What limitation on our rights and freedoms is stated in the Charter (Sec.1)?

14.      The Charter holds these fundamental freedoms:

·                    Conscience and religion

·                    Thought

·                    Belief

·                    Opinion

·                    Expression

·                    Peaceful assembly

·                    Association

15.      The Charter holds these fundamental rights:

·                    Democratic (governing voting and elections)

·                    Mobility (movement within and outside of Canada)

·                    Legal rights

·                    Equality rights

·                    Etc.

16.      Using information from the Charter, argue in favour or argue against this statement: Teenagers are victims of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination.  Their rights should be expanded to include cheaper car insurance rates and the right to vote and buy alcohol and cigarettes at age 16.

17.      Which groups of Canadians have experienced discrimination?

18.      What forms of discrimination still exist in Canada?  What is being done to eliminate them?

Please look at the following from the textbook:  The Review Sections at the end of each of Chapters 1, 2, 3 – you should be familiar with the issues, vocabulary and concepts dealt with there.

Be familiar with the Susan Rodriguez Case (in 1993, which upheld the Criminal Code section against assisting someone to commit suicide) and the current debate and Supreme Court Case on the same issue (case was heard on October 15, 2014 – see online CBC News for good coverage of it).  What in society has changed to reopen the debate on how Section 7 and 15 of the Charter should be interpreted when it comes to assisted suicide?

DAY 26 Locker Searches and Your Rights

Live feed of Space Walk on the ISS.

Please read Search and Seizure in a School Setting which covers various aspects of your rights in a school setting, in particular your rights regarding your lockers. 

Next you spent some time looking through the write up on Locker Searches.  I have asked, on the handout, that you create a four paragraph response explaining how you see the information on Locker Searches connecting with the Charter of Rights.  You must be specific (i.e. cite the sections of the Charter) when you refer to the Charter and in each case explain the significance of the Charter in ensuring an effective justice system in Canada.  Then submit to Turnitin.

Points to Consider in Locker Searches:
1. Privacy.
2. Who owns the locker?
3. School-wide security.
4. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion"?
5. Who are the witnesses?
6. What about shared lockers?
7. Seriousness of the suspected offense.
8. What about lockers that are not locked?
9. Prior offenses of the suspects?
10. Should all lockers be searched?

DAY 25 More About Your Rights (Latimer and 3 Cases)

Quick Review of the Robert Latimer Case from Friday.

Then in small groups address the questions in ......How Does Society Feel About the Latimer Case?

Three precedent setting cases:

R. v. Oakes, Page 39

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, Page 41-42

Canada v. JTI-McDonald Corp., Page 44

DAY 24 - Right to Die and Euthanasia. The Latimer Case

The Latimer Case

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 23 - Intro Chapter Highlights and Chapter 2

Please ensure that you have in your notes the "Chapter Highlights" from page 34 of the text.  That is vocabulary that you should know.  Also please do the four "Check Your Knowledge" questions on the same page.

Then, please flip to the next Chapter, "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."  As you can see by looking at the Chapter at a Glance topics on page 36 you already know most of these topics.  So, please flip to page 64 and take a note on Remedies and then answer the five questions that follow and then take a short note on "The Courts and the Legislature" on page 67.

Please ensure that you have in your notes the "Chapter Highlights" from page 68 of the text.  That is also vocabulary you should know.  Also please do Questions 2 and 4 from the "Check Your Knowledge" section on page 68.

Please put all the texts back into three neat piles along the board.


I'll return Friday and we'll pick up where we left our discussion on the right to die with dignity and the Sue Rodriguez case.

DAY 22 What Happens When Your Charter Rights Are Breached? Sue Rodriguez

Sometimes a person's rights are not recognized or they are breached by government action or inaction.  Then what? 

Page 38 - How do we know if an action warrants the application of the Charter?  The courts will always ask these questions in this order:

1. Does the Charter Apply?  If it involves the government, then it could apply. e.g. the government passes a law about how the police can search for and seize evidence for a trial.  The law could potentially breach a Charter right.

2. Has a Charter right or freedom been infringed?  Has the government action infringed a specific right or freedom from the Charter, if so then it might be a Charter case.

3. Does the Reasonable Limits Clause (s. 1) justify the infringement? Is the action of the government that infringes upon the right or freedom justifiable and reasonable in our country which is a "free and democratic" country?  e.g. age limit of 18 for voting.

4. If not, is there a remedy under the Charter (s. 24)?  It states:

• "24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances."  (In plain English, courts can order a remedy to enforce your Charter Rights if it's applicable).

Sue Rodriguez and the "Right to Die with Dignity" debate. 

Today we are looking at the case of Sue Rodriguez and the right to die with dignity in Canada.

Please write these questions down: 

Sue Rodriguez: "Whose body is this?  Who owns my life?"

1. How does this quote relate to your own life and your own body?

2. Who has the authority to tell you what you can and cannot do with your life or your body?

3. What is Euthanasia?

4. When is Euthanasia used with animals?

5. How does s. 1 of the Charter limit individual rights?

Video Clip on Sue Rodriguez

While viewing the video clip, let's try to answer these questions: 

6.  What are the symptoms of Lou Gehrig’s disease? Is it treatable?

7.  What constitutional rights did Rodriguez say had been violated by the Criminal Code?

8.  What is the significance of the timing of Rodriguez’s death?

Short Debate on the right to die with dignity.

Sue Rodriguez's public appeal.

Here is some more information on Sue Rodriguez and the Right to Die in Canada.  It has a synopsis of the case and some more questions for you to tackle.