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?

DAY 23 - 26 (March 17 - 20)

Monday, March 17

I'm away until Friday so please follow instructions here on the blog.

From Text:

Three cases:

R. v. Oakes, Page 39

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

Canada v. JTI-McDonald Corp., Page 44

Please read the cases and answer the questions that follow.

Tuesday, March 18

Today we're looking at three different philosophies of law as follows:

Positivism - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers FACTS, technical information, literal interpretation of law, "letter of the law".  What this school of thought does not consider is any other legal philosophy.  This school of thought is not interested in "extenuating" circumstances.

Natural Law - the way of looking at a legal idea that considers the "will of god", the compassionate nature of the god or the wrathful nature of the god.  This school of thought is often guided by religious principles that establish what the "natural order" of existence should be.  For some people nature is ruled by God.

Realism - this way of looking at a legal idea does not direct it in any way.  Realists acknowledge that many different factors influence legal ideas.  For example, psychological, social, cultural, religious, economic, experiential, etc. factors can influence how we should examine a legal principle.  A true realist judge would try to gather as much information from many aspects of a case to render a good judgment (background of the offender, religious beliefs, motivations of people, etc.).

Here's the handout on Three Legal Philosophies (see R v. Ford below).

On the back of this sheet is the R. v. Ford Case in which I ask everyone to make a legal judgment on a case, your first case!  When you are done reading then answer the CASE QUESTION at the bottom of the case - this is formal and you need to write your case in full paragraphs.

Everyone should list the factors that are most important in deciding this case. 

For Example:

1. Ford was charged with theft of narcotics (insulin).
2. He stole the insulin for his daughter (diabetic)
3. Dyslexia prevents him from getting a job despite his efforts to find one.
4. Freeland is deeply religious.
5. That religion required Ford to provide insulin for his daughter.
6. He could not afford it so he had to steal it.
7. Ford has been unemployed for eight months.
8. Social assistance was not available to Ford because he was not disabled "enough".
9. Mandatory penalty of 15 yrs. in jail for narcotics theft (insulin is considered a narcotic in Freeland).
10. Daughter's health was deteriorating because of lack of insulin (three weeks).

Wednesday, March 19

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

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.  Use your text to look up relevant information - Index, Chapters 1-3.

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?

Thursday, March 20

Criminal Law - Introduction

Please go through Chapter 4, Intro to Criminal Law taking notes on subheadings and answering all questions that you encounter.

DAY 19 - Peer Editing History of Law

This picture says a thousand words . . . so GREAT to see so many of your critiquing each other's work, it really is an effective way to improve your own work during the writing process.  Nicely done, everyone!

DAY 18 - History of Law Final Instructions

Please submit your completed work to Turnitin.com.

If you don't already have one please make an account there.  This course is Law CLU Introduction to Canadian Law and the course ID is 7645875.

DAY 16 (Feb 26) History of Law Presentation Rubric

History of Law Presentation Rubric

History of Law Paper Rubric

Updated History of Law Schedule

	Time Period  /  Law	Presentation	Papers Due	Students
	c.1700 BCE Code of Hammurabi	Kovich Feb 12
1	1300 BCE: The Ten Commandments (Mosaic Law)	Wed., March 5	Wed., March 5	Nick, Jacob, Aaron
2	450 BCE: The Twelve Tables (Roman Law)	Wed., March 5	Wed., March 5	Matt, Colby
3	529 CE: Justinian’s Code (Emperor of Byzantine)	Wed., March 5	Wed., March 5	Mason, Alex
4	661 CE: Islamic Law (Sharia)	Wed., March 5	Wed., March 5	Nick K, Will
5	1215: Magna Carta (King John of England)	Wed., March 5	Wed., March 5	Emily, Ellis, Saila
6	1487: The Star Chamber (England)	Thurs., March 6	Wed., March 5	Nick, Jake
7	1787 & 1791: U.S. Constitution and the American Bill of Rights	Thurs., March 6	Wed., March 5	Emma, Zoe, Taylor
8	1804: Napoleonic Code (France)	Thurs., March 6	Wed., March 5	Georgia, Austin
9	1864: The Geneva Convention	Thurs., March 6	Wed., March 5	Samantha, Meghan
10	1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights	Thurs., March 6	Wed., March 5	Salina, Tara

NEW:  Peer Edit Day is now Monday, March 3.
NEW:  ALL Papers are now due on Wednesday, March 5.
NOTE: Presentations will be done on Wed., Mar.5 and Thurs. Mar. 6

DAY 11 - Intro to Law Quiz

First we did this pop quiz on Intro to Law - work from Chapter 1 of the Text that you started on Friday.

Then we took up the information from the text - see yesterday's blog for complete details - I added all of the information under the appropriate headings.

DAY 10 (Feb 14) Intro to Law in the Text

Here is a list of notes and clarifications of Legal ideas that you worked on today.  This information is in Chapter 1 of your text, pp. 8 - 28.  Please go through the text to find brief answers to all of these headlines:

Why Do We Need Laws?


Difference between RULES & LAWS?


FUNCTION OF LAW


DIVISIONS OF LAW
Public Law

Private Law

Historical Development of Law -

COMMON LAW -

CASE LAW-

PRECEDENT -

Citation of Case Law - Page 17 has this in great detail.  One point to note - in criminal cases it's always listed as "R. vs. Smith" (or the defendant's last name), where the "R." represents "Rex" or "Regina", which is Latin for King or Queen.  The state (Canada) lays criminal charges, individuals do not lay criminal charges.

RULE OF LAW -

HABEAS CORPUS -

How Laws are Made in Canada

DAY 8 Hammurabi's Code and the History of Law Project

Today we're also looking at the history of law in the world.  It is important to note that law is constantly evolving.  Each of the records of Law that you will cover had an impact on laws written hundreds or even thousands of years later.  For example, the Napoleonic Code was based heavily on the Justinian Code, and civil law in Quebec is based on the Napoleonic Code, and there are many many more examples.

The first set of ancient laws that we will look at is the Code of Hammurabi (this is a complete text of it).  In 1,800 B.C. the Amorite king, Hammurabi, took the throne of the new Babylonian dynasty in what is today modern Iraq. He was the sixth king of the first dynasty of Babylon. Immediately he began to expand his new empire to eventually include Assyria and northern Syria. Hammurabi was a great military leader and lawgiver. In the first year of his reign Hammurabi fulfilled a promise to the Babylonian god Marduk and established an extensive law system which encompassed nearly every area of ancient life. The document was over 300 paragraphs long and included sections on social, moral, religious, commercial and civil law.

Kings of the day often posted large monuments listing their laws with an accompanying statue carving of themselves to identify the law with the king. Hammurabi was no different in this practice. There were many copies of this law erected throughout the kingdom usually in temples dedicated to local gods. One of the original pillars now resides in the Louvre Museum, in Paris.

Presentation on the Code of Hammurabi.





Today I introduced the History of Law Project.  You are to create a presentation similar to my Hammurabi's Code presentation.  The Project Outline is below as is the marking scheme for it.

History of Law Project Outline

	Time Period  /  Law	Presentation	Papers Due	Students
	c.1700 BCE Code of Hammurabi	Kovich Feb 12
1	1300 BCE: The Ten Commandments (Mosaic Law)	Wed, Feb 26	Tues, Feb 25	Nick, Jacob, Aaron
2	450 BCE: The Twelve Tables (Roman Law)	Wed, Feb 26	Tues, Feb 25	Matt, Colby
3	529 CE: Justinian’s Code (Emperor of Byzantine)	Wed, Feb 26	Tues, Feb 25	Mason, Alex
4	661 CE: Islamic Law (Sharia)	Wed, Feb 26	Tues, Feb 25	Nick K, Will
5	1215: Magna Carta (King John of England)	Wed, Feb 26	Tues, Feb 25	Emily, Ellis, Saila
6	1487: The Star Chamber (England)	Thur, Feb 27	Tues, Feb 25	Nick, Jake
7	1787 & 1791: U.S. Constitution and the American Bill of Rights	Thur, Feb 27	Tues, Feb 25	Emma, Zoe, Taylor
8	1804: Napoleonic Code (France)	Thur, Feb 27	Tues, Feb 25	Georgia, Austin
9	1864: The Geneva Convention	Thur, Feb 27	Tues, Feb 25	Samantha, Meghan
10	1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights	Thur, Feb 27	Tues, Feb 25	Salina, Tara

	Monday	Tuesday	Wednesday	Thursday	Friday
Feb 10-14			Hammurabi	Library Lab
Feb 17-21	Family Day Holiday		Library Lab	Paper rough work meet with Kovich in class	Library Lab
Feb 24-28	Peer Edit in Class - MUST have three copies of Draft Paper	Final Lab Day, Library	ALL PAPERS DUE Presentations 1-5	Presentations 6-10

DAY 7 (Feb 11) Charter of Rights and Freedoms

DAY 7 (Feb 11) Charter of Rights and Freedoms

We started by going through each of your parts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were assigned yesterday.  You did a very good job with interpreting your first Canadian Law!  Well done!

I then distributed the Government of Canada's official guide to the Charter and we clarified some of the sections of it.  We discovered some interesting things about the Charter including:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a set of laws containing the basic rules about how our country operates.  For examples, it contains the powers of the federal government and the powers of the provincial governments of Canada.

The Charter also sets out the Rights and Freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society including:

• Freedom of Expression
• Our right to live and seek employment anywhere in Canada
• Our right to a democratic government
• The rights of anyone accused of crimes
• Aboriginal Peoples' rights
• The right to equality, including the equality of women and men
• Our right to use either of Canada's official languages (French, English)
• The right of linguistic minorities to an education in their own language
• The protection of Canada's multicultural heritage

WHY is it important that the Charter is part of our Constitution?
The Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and all other laws must be consistent with the rules set out in the Constitution - if they are not they may not be valid.  Because the Charter is part of the Constitution, laws that limit Charter rights may be invalid.  This makes the Charter the most important law we have in Canada.

The Charter does, however, allow governments to put some limits on some Charter rights.  This is set out in Section 1 which says that other laws may limit the rights and freedoms in the Charter so long as those laws are reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.  So, a law that limits a Charter right is still valid if it confirms with Section 1.

Also, the federal Department of Justice must make sure that new laws proposed by the federal government comply with the Charter.

How Long has the Charter been in Force?
The Charter came into effect on April 17, 1982 as part of a package of reforms contained in The Constitution Act, 1982.

Are All of Your Rights contained in the Charter?
No.  The Charter contains those rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are essential in a free and democratic country.  Many other laws create rights too.  The federal, provincial and territorial governments all have laws that provide rights and freedoms: laws against discrimination in employment and accommodation, consumer protection laws, environmental laws, and, in the area of criminal law, laws that give rights to witnesses, victims and those accused of crimes.  There are many more as well.

Who Enjoys Charter Rights?
Generally, any person in Canada, whether a Canadian citizen, a permanent resident or a newcomer, has the rights and freedoms contained in the Charter.  There are some exceptions as follows:
Some rights are limited only to Canadian citizens: the right to vote (s.3) and the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada (s.6).

What Can I Do If My Charter Rights Have Been Denied?
The Charter allows for three kinds of actions to those whose rights have been denied.  They are called, "legal remedies."

1. A person can ask a court for a remedy that is "appropriate and just in the circumstances."  For example a court may stop proceedings against a person charged with an offence if his or her right to a trial within a reasonable time has been denied.

2. A second remedy is available when persons carrying out investigations for the government (e.g. police officers) violate a person's Charter rights.  This may happen when the police improperly search for evidence on a private property and violate a person's right to privacy.  In this situation a person can ask a court to order that the evidence not be used against the person in a trial.  A court would make an order like this if the evidence at a trial would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute." (s.24)

3. Finally, if a court finds that a law violates Charter rights, it can rule that the law has no force (s.52of the Constitution Act, 1982).

DAY 6 (Feb 10) Lost in a Cave and Our Rights

DAY 6 (Feb 10) Lost in a Cave and Our Rights

Today we're having a look at the old Law Gem, Lost in a Cave.  In your assigned groups you are to address all of the questions and then present your findings to the class on large chart paper.

Some of the main legal points addressed here are (these are notes from today's class discussion and your presentations):

1. Society - what is it and did the three boys constitute a society?

2. How were the boys still part of their previous (outside the cave) society?

3. Did they pass a rule or a law?  Why?

4. Did Canadian Law still govern the boys' actions?  

5. What kind of law does Canadian Law, in this case, not account for?

6. Any differences if they were on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean?


Tonight I expect each of you to return to class tomorrow having had a good look at your assigned part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and ready to explain it to the class tomorrow.  Please don't worry, I'll help you all along in this task.

Day 5 The Star Chamber - all done!

I wasn't here yesterday (I was away with the Acton HS Alpine Racing Team) and I understand that there were a lot of questions after the film ended and that you didn't have much time to work on this, so today we are in the Library Lab to help get everyone started and well on their way.

DAY 2 - The Star Chamber Continued, DAY 3 - Snow Day! So, Day 4, Star Chamber Finished

Welcome back from yesterday's Snow Day.

We'll finish the film today and then go to the Library Lab to get you working on some thinking questions for the film.  The synopsis of the film is on the previous blog entry.

Here are some questions to consider and write full answers for.  Please use Google Docs to do your work (Create Document once you've logged into Google).  When you're finished please upload your work to the TurnItIn site for this course, "Law CLU Intro to Canadian Law", more on that below.

Please write a two paragraph reflection on this film and how it relates to justice being served.  In your work please refer to specifics in the film including, but not limited to:

• The roles of judges. E.g. the older judge, Caulfield, said:  "What happened to the law?  We're the law.  We let it happen!"). E.g. 2 - the younger judge, Hardin, said, "My responsibility is to give a fair trial according to the law."

• What are the implications / outcomes of always ensuring a fair trial, according to the law, for those accused of serious crimes and for their victims?

• Your ideas of the differences between "right" and "wrong" and who decides on what is right or wrong. The young judge, Hardin, said, "There is no right and wrong.  There’s only the Law!"

• Reflections on the differences and similarities between the Law and Justice. The older judge said, “Someone has hijacked justice and hidden it in the Law!”

• Your opinion on whether or not you think we should have a Star Chamber in our legal system today in Canada to finish off the cases in which guilty people are set free because of “loopholes” in the law? Exactly what would we gain or lose with a made in Canada Star Chamber?

When your work is done, please log into Turnitin Originality Checker to submit your work.  You'll have to create your own account.  Then go to this class, Law CLU Intro to  Canadian Law and use the dropbox for this Star Chamber assignment to upload your work - SHARE your Google Doc link and then within Turn It In - Submit, make sure the "Cut and Paste" option is changed to "Single File Upload" (you'll see the little arrow to change it) and then Upload from Google, the last option in the list at the bottom.  The course is ID # 7645875   and the password is  " acton "  .

Star Chamber and Justice

Star Chamber and Justice

This is for the second half of the class - we are in the Library Lab getting each of you a GMail address that closely resembles your name and you must complete the Contact Information Form and subscribe to my text message reminder service.

We started the course today with a look at the film, The Star Chamber, which deals with Judge Hardin (Michael Douglas) as an idealistic Los Angeles judge who is frustrated when the technicalities of the law prevent the prosecution of two men who are accused of raping and killing a 10-year-old boy. Judge Hardin joins a modern-day "Star Chamber", group of judges who identify criminals who fell through the judicial system's cracks and then 'do something about them' by issuing appropriate sentences for the crimes committed.  All of this, of course, occurs behind closed doors in secret and outside the parameters of legalities in our modern-day society.


The term "Star Chamber" comes from an old English Court of Law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. It was made up of Privy Counselors as well as common law judges, and it supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon and became a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.

It was mistakenly thought that in 1487 an act was passed which established a special "Court of Star Chamber" to deal with the nobles; however, the only legislation passed in that year in this context was to set up a tribunal to prevent the intimidation of juries and to stop "retaining", i.e. the keeping of private armies by persons of rank. It seems to have gone out of use by 1509 and it had no connection with the later Court of Star Chamber whose primary purpose was to hear political treason and libel cases.

In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, Star Chambers. This is a pejorative (negative) term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of any politically motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since that time.

Clearly there are connections between the idea of the old Star Chamber of England and the depiction in the film of the administration of justice, or rather, because of what we call "legal technicalities", the lack of administration of justice, especially in serious criminal cases.