For The Following Assignment, Review And Respond ✓ Solved

For The Following Assignment You Will Review And Respond To Three Dif

For the following assignment, you will review and respond to three different items. Item 1: Michael and his girlfriend, Jane are having a verbal argument in front of the supermarket. Jane says, “You know what…I am walking home”. Michael replies, “No you’re not!” He then opens the right front passenger side door and pushes Jane inside. He gets in the driver’s seat and drives off, while Jane is trying to unlock the door to get out. Michael relocks the door and continues driving. Jane repeatedly asks him to let her out. Think about the crimes that Michael has committed. Describe the crimes and the elements. Then, identify which portions of the scenario meet the elements. Item 2: Discuss the elements of Voluntary Manslaughter and the concept of adequate provocation. Provide an example or scenario which demonstrates the incorporation of both. Item 3: David and his friend, John, commit a bank robbery. In the process of doing so, the police arrive and John is shot and killed by the Police. Consider whether or not David can be charged with Felony Murder for the death of John. Describe the elements of Felony Murder, conduct an analysis of the scenario presented and provide support for your opinion on whether or not David can be charged with Felony Murder for the death of John. Requirements: The assignment shall be in APA format, typed in 12 font Times New Roman, and shall not have been turned in previously to any other instructor for any other course or assignment. Paper length is 1-2 pages not to include the cover page or bibliography. It is to be submitted as a Microsoft Word Document. The assignment shall be an individual effort and not a group project.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

This paper explores three distinct criminal law scenarios, analyzing the crimes committed, the elements involved, and relevant legal principles. The first scenario involves a possible kidnapping and assault, requiring identification of the crimes and their elements. The second examines voluntary manslaughter and adequate provocation, necessitating a discussion of their legal standards complemented by an illustrative example. The third scenario considers the concept of felony murder in the context of a police shooting during a bank robbery, prompting an analysis of whether criminal liability attaches to the defendant under these circumstances.

Analysis of Michael and Jane Scenario

The first scenario involves Michael forcibly removing Jane from a public place and detaining her inside a vehicle. The crimes potentially committed include kidnapping and assault. Kidnapping, as defined under most jurisdictions, involves the unlawful confinement or removal of a person against their will, often with malicious intent or unlawful purpose—such as to facilitate a subsequent crime or to intimidate (LaFave, 2017). Assault involves intentionally causing apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact, but in cases like this, physical contact or actual injury could elevate the charge to assault and battery (Dressler & Samuel, 2018).

In this scenario, Michael opens the door and pushes Jane inside the vehicle, which satisfies the element of unlawful confinement, as Jane is forcibly removed from her position and physically detained. By relocking the door and continuing to drive with her inside against her will, Michael fulfills the element of unlawful confinement or kidnapping. His act of physically pushing her into the vehicle and locking her inside constitutes confinement against her will, satisfying the elements of kidnapping. Additionally, his act of physically forcing Jane into the vehicle could also amount to assault, especially if she reasonably feared immediate harm.

Furthermore, Michael’s removal of Jane from a public place, coupled with his ongoing detention, meets the essential elements of kidnapping—a non-consensual movement and confinement of a person. His act of preventing her from exiting the vehicle while she pleads to be let out could also satisfy elements of false imprisonment, which involves unlawful restraint of someone’s liberty (King & Keith, 2018).

In conclusion, Michael committed at least kidnapping and false imprisonment by physically forcing Jane into the vehicle, locking her inside, and continuing to detain her against her will, fulfilling the statutory elements of these crimes.

Elements of Voluntary Manslaughter and Adequate Provocation

Voluntary manslaughter is a homicide committed in the "heat of passion" as a result of adequate provocation, without prior intent to kill (LaFave, 2017). This legal concept recognizes scenarios where a reasonable person would be so provoked that they lose self-control, leading to a killing that is not premeditated but still culpable. The key elements of voluntary manslaughter include:

- An intentional killing

- In response to adequate provocation

- Under circumstances that negate malice aforethought

Adequate provocation refers to a situation that might incite an ordinary person to lose self-control, such as a provocative act or insult, which directly precipitates the killing. The provocation must be sudden and sufficient to induce a reasonable person to lose self-control (Dressler & Samuel, 2018).

An example scenario illustrating both elements would involve a spouse discovering their partner engaged in an affair, leading to an immediate, passionate confrontation during which the provoked spouse fatally assaults their partner. Here, the immediate provocation (discovery of infidelity) and the subsequent loss of self-control meet the criteria for voluntary manslaughter.

Together, these elements demonstrate the delicate balance the law maintains between intent and circumstances that mitigate homicide from murder to manslaughter, acknowledging human emotional responses.

Felony Murder and the Case of David and John

Felony murder doctrine holds that a homicide committed during the commission or attempt of a dangerous felony can lead to murder liability, regardless of intent to kill (LaFave, 2017). The key elements include:

- The commission or attempt of a felony (e.g., robbery, arson)

- During which a death occurs

- The death is caused in the course of or in furtherance of the felony

In the scenario, David and John commit a bank robbery, which is a felony. During the robbery, police arrive, and John is shot and killed. The critical question is whether David can be held liable for John’s death under the felony murder rule.

Applying the elements, David's participation in the robbery satisfies the felony component. The death of John could potentially be linked to the felony under the "in furtherance" doctrine if John’s death arose out of or was closely connected to the commission of the felony. However, whether David can be charged depends on the causation and foreseeability of John’s death, as well as whether David’s actions directly contributed to the shooting.

Some jurisdictions require the felony to be the proximate cause of the death, with the death occurring during or as a consequence of the felony (Lynch & Haney, 2009). If the police shooting was directly triggered by the robbery and involved actions by police that were foreseeable or initiated by the felons’ conduct, David could be liable under felony murder. Conversely, if the police action was independent or unforeseen, liability may not extend to David.

In this scenario, since David was actively engaged in the bank robbery when police arrived, and assuming the police shooting was a foreseeable consequence of violent resistance or threatening conduct, David might be held liable for felony murder. Conversely, if the police shot John due to their own independent security measures, and David had no involvement in that ensuing chaos, liability might not attach.

Based on this analysis, it is plausible that David could be charged with felony murder if the police shooting was a foreseeable outcome of the robbery and his participation. Courts often interpret felony murder broadly, and given the proximity in time and causal connection, liability for John’s death appears supportable.

Conclusion

The scenarios examined underscore the complexities of criminal liability within various contexts. Michael’s conduct involves kidnapping and false imprisonment, with clear meet of criminal elements. The law’s treatment of voluntary manslaughter emphasizes the importance of provocation and human emotional responses, illustrating its nuanced application. Finally, the doctrine of felony murder extends liability to participants in dangerous felonies, contingent upon causation and foreseeability—highlighted by the potential liability of David in the bank robbery scenario. These analyses underscore the importance of understanding criminal elements and legal doctrines to accurately evaluate liability in criminal cases.

References

• Dressler, J., & Samuel, C. (2018). Understanding Criminal Law (8th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
• LaFave, W. R. (2017). Criminal Law (6th ed.). West Academic Publishing.
• Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2009). Criminal Law and Procedure. Aspen Publishing.
• King, R. R., & Keith, H. (2018). Criminal Law and Procedure. Routledge.
• Holloway, K. (2020). Legal Perspectives on Kidnapping and False Imprisonment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(3), 201-208.