You Will Be The Judge Facts: The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children. Issue: Is Mr. Grimbly is guilty of or not guilty of assault ? Held: Mr.Grimbly is guilty of assault. Judicial Reasoning #1: Taking a look at the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada case. The majority’s opinion states s43 means that “use of force has to be …show more content…
Tutton can be also be applied in this scenario. The case involves a child named Christopher who needed insulin injection to stay in proper health, however, the mother refused to give the insulin believing God will be able to heal him, resulting in the death of Christopher. The accused argued that she is religious and had a vision of God that told her that Christopher was cured. The courts argues that under the law, she had the duty to provide Christopher with the injections unless she had an lawful excuse such as can not properly afford the drug, since she did not have any lawful excuse, she was charged with manslaughter by showing reckless disregard for Christopher’s life due to knowing the fact that the doctors told Tuttons that Christopher needed the insulin in order to maintain healthy . This case is very similar to the case provided. Both of the case involves Religion. Based on the R v. Tutton case, even though the accused was following their religion, it does not help the fact that in the end they still committed murder. In this case, although the father was following his own religion, it still does not help the fact that he still physically beaten the child with a
Identify the affected party in the case. (internal and external parties and consequences) Internal party Barry Minkow A federal grand jury indicted Minkow and ten other ZZZZ Best insiders on 54 counts of racketeering, securities fraud, money laundering, embezzlement, mail fraud, tax evasion, and bank fraud in January 1988. In his indictment, Minkow is accused of draining his company of assets while bilking banks and investors. Additionally, Minkow has been accused of setting up false companies, writing false invoices, and conducting fake restoration tours.
Case Analysis: Trinity Western v. Law Society of Upper Canada In the following court case between Trinity Western University v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, Judges MacPherson, Cronk, and Pardu JJ, at the Ontario Court of Appeal, determine whether to grant accreditation to a private Christian University, that wants to open its own law school. The three-judge panel analyzes the Law Society of Upper Canada’s (LSUC) decision to not accredit Trinity Western’s proposed law facility, which took place in April 2014. The judges consider the Charter rights at stake, as well as the LSUC’s mandate. The case of TWU v. LSUC will be thoroughly examined, with a specific focus on key concepts that influence law-making, such as social development and change,
This is a respectful submission of the prosecution arguments regarding the case R. v. Collins. The arguments will show that the evidence ceased at from the accused should be admissible in the court of law as a Mrs. Collins section 8 Charter right was not violated (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265). Case laws along other judge’s interpretation will reinforce the arguments presented. The paper will establish arguments based on reasonable grounds, the good faith doctrine and the admissibility of evidence. The accused was arrested by two Royal Mounted Canadian Police (RCMP) officers at the Cedar’s Pub with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265).
Winnebago County Social Services (1989) and Ingraham v. Wright (1977). I disagree with the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989) case because I think the judge should have did something to protect the child. They just let the father beat, bruise, and hospitalized the poor child. I disagree with the Ingraham v. Wright (1977) case because Supreme Court the the principle hit on the child under his will and bruise him to where he was out almost a whole week of school. I think this cruel and the Supreme Court should reopen the case
RELATED CASES: None SUPPORT DOCUMENTS: None On 10/30/2015, Marilyn Henderson contacted Pasco Sheriff`s Office by telephone to report a Petit Theft of two bicycles. Ms. Henderson advised sometime between 1300 hours on 10/29/2015, and 0600 hours on 10/30/2015, an unknown suspect stole two unsecured one speed bicycles off of her open lanai carport. Ms. Henderson described her bicycle as a ladies, turquoise colored, Huffy, with twenty-six inch tires, a beige basket on the handlebars and a gold painted "M" on the rear fender. She described her husband`s bicycle as a men`s black and gold Huffy with twenty-six inch tires.
Summary of Argument The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Defendant guilty of endangering a welfare of a child within the meaning of the statute § 273(a) (CPC). The child endangering statute imposes criminal liability on a person who knowingly and willfully permits a child to be endangered while having care or custody of this child. Here, because of the evidence that Defendant was the main caretaker and babysitter of Isuru (the victim), and that she assumed this role willingly, it is sufficient to establish that the victim was in the care or custody of Defendant. In addition, the fact that Defendant did not report the abuse to authorities and did not act in defense of the victim establishes evidence that Defendant willfully
In his, essay, "The Dead Baby Mystery," Gawande mentions a child abuse court case that involves the deaths of eight children of Marie Noe that no one could explain. As an example of how no one could explain the deaths, Gawande writes, "some of the most respected pathologists of the time, could find no explanation for the crib deaths" (202) and "Foul play was strongly considered, but no evidence was found" (202). With the use of these points in his essay, Gawande presents a broader sense that cases, like Marie Noe, for child abuse do not have an easy outcome in determining guilt. Even three decades later — Marie Noe's case was reopened, and the judged charged her — one of the officials wrote back to Gawande explains "that there was no direct
U.S. v. Bailey, 44 U.S. 394 (1980) Facts of the Case: On the morning of August 26, 1976 Clifford Bailey and three other prisoners (James T. Cogdell, Ronald C. Cooley, and Ralph Walker) were at the District of Columbia Jail, where they removed a bar from the window and proceeded to use bedsheets that were knotted together in order to escape for one month to three and a half months out of custody (“United States v. Bailey Et Al”, 1980). This led to the violation of statute 18 U. S. C. § 751, which is about escaping the federal jurisdiction of custody from them. The escapees did not immediately turn themselves in, but did say that they did not do so because they were told, indirectly by who they claimed was the FBI, that they would be killed
Accordingly of accord with the above mentioned complainant declared a prima facie case 0f Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation on the basis of national origin when he shows the elements that apply such as: 1.- the Complainant's national origin “ Hispanic”. 2.- The complainant is otherwise qualifies for the benefits in question“ legally enrolled in the Tyler Junior College”.
The Mental health court session that I observed was focused on issues regarding commitment issues. There were seven cases on the docket on the day that I attended. The cases ranged from individuals dealing with bipolar disorder to paranoid schizophrenia. Some of the individuals had been brought in because they had made threats to their families and to members of their communities, while others had reported to having hallucinations and delusions of people trying to harm them. One of the cases that stood out the most, was an individual suffering with paranoid schizophrenia had been in and out of institutions for most of his life, and the main reason for the individuals return was due to being noncompliant with medications.
Comments for Adrienne Sewell: The American Red Cross Swimming Project: Intro & Situation Analysis Strengths: 1. You showed great knowledge of Red Cross and what they do. Some of the things that you mentioned that should me your knowledge were items that you included such as the diverse activities that this organization takes part in such as disaster relief, health education, and the topic your group appeared to focus on safety education training. 2. The way that you presented this project was done very well.
In such cases, the child is not in charge of what has happened, so it is not reasonable to the
Plaintiff's respectfully request from this court an extension of time to file Plaintiff's Opening Brief for their case for the following reasons; Plaintiff's are at present time not represented by council and are preceding with Appeal Pro Se and due to the seriousness of any outcome in our case and the complex law and new laws regarding our case Plaintiff's need additional time to review relevant law and consult with appropriate people, persons regarding their case. Some of the complex and extensive issues regarding Plaintiff's case are but not limited to; Defendant's (Citimortgage,Inc.'s) Separate Statement in their MSJ which contained some 88 SSF issues per each Plt., Power of Attorney laws, HAMP/FANNIE laws,rules,regulations,public policies,
The young boy spent two months in juvie until his court date arrived. In the courtroom the judge declared that the parents were to blame for their child's actions; they would be held accountable and later be fined. In the law it states that parents have a responsibility to teach and supervise their children under the age of 18. If a minor committed an offensive violent crime that results in time spent in juvenile detention then the parents can be very much held accountable and fined. Parents of
In the decision Murray J and Murphy J found that although the parent’s decision was “unwise and disturbing” they did not fail in their duty to the child and it was their decision to make and not the State. Murray J stated that in order for the state to intervene there must be an immediate and fundamental threat to the capacity of the