Create a 8 page essay paper that discusses The definition of intention in the case of Woolin lacks clarity. A legislative definition is necessary so as to ensure that ther.Download file to see previou

Create a 8 page essay paper that discusses The definition of intention in the case of Woolin lacks clarity. A legislative definition is necessary so as to ensure that ther.

Download file to see previous pages…

In other words, the end result was not the intended outcome by the actor. Kugler further explained that much debate has been on the issue whether a case might be judged and the accused sentenced using the distinction between intention and recklessness. On the other hand, the intention of the actor has to be established as clearly as possible in passing out murder judgments to the defendant to avoid the temptation of involving judicial moralism in the cases. The problem in this case is extended by the introduction of morality in criminal jurisdictions. The use of a moral formula in defining the offence as kugler (2002) explained has been the cause of much acrimony in courts today. The use of the double effect doctrine inter alia, requires that, oblique intention should not be the same in all cases involving a crime of intention as well as using a moral formula in defining some offences in criminal cases. Ross (1996) in his explanation of morality, justice and judicial morality explained that the issue of introducing morality in corridors of justice has raised much concern and debates in courts. …

In the case of Woollin throwing the child in the room, which led to the child’s death, there lacks a clear defined intent in the action, which would make it possible for the juror to possibly infer on the laws of morality in sentencing the accused. It would therefore be more prudent to have clearly defined laws which would define the aspect of intent to avoid judicial morality in arguing out cases in the courts, which as Willson (2000) explained has been the dilemma in many criminal cases. The case of Regina v Woolin (1Cr. App. R. 8, 1999) involved a heated debate about the intent and the actual action of the accused that led to the death of a child, after Woolin threw the child in the room causing the child to suffer a fractured skull that led to his death. The accused on his defense argued that, the intention was to cause just slight harm to the child and was not to cause the death of the child through the serious harm suffered. From the case, it might be certain that Wollin had prior knowledge of his actions and was aware well in adverse that the action would result into serious harm to the child as could be defined by mens rea. The dilemma of intention was further brought out through the Nedrick case (83, Cr. App. R. 267, 1986) by Lord Lane, C.J. In the ruling the judge ruled that in a case where, the accused has been charged with murder and the jury have to decide whether the accused intended to kill or to inflict serious bodily harm, the jury cannot therefore infer the intention to the accused unless where the serious bodily harm might be of virtual certainty due to the defendants actions.

Leave a Reply