Issah Jünger: An Accused Of Second-Degree Crime

Hassan Farhat, 19, and a 17-year-old boy, whose identity is protected under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, stand accused of second-degree murder in connection with the tragic death of 18-year-old Issah Jünger. The incident occurred at 1:30 a.m. on February 6, 2024 following a shooting in the Lansdowne Avenue and Bloor Street West area. Since this offense involves intentional and deliberate conduct, it can be classified as second-degree murder, therefore it is an indictable offense as outlined in Section 231 of the Criminal Code of Canada. This felony carries several penalties upon conviction. The two accused individuals face the possibility of life imprisonment, with eligibility for parole after serving a minimum term of 11 to 25 years, as

While the mens rea is the mental state or intention behind it, it comes from the Latin translation of ‘guilty mind’. In this case, the actus reus is clear as the accused supposedly fired a gun and caused the death of Issah Jünger. For a second-degree murder accusation, the physical act of shooting someone and causing their death satisfies the actus reus criterion. Additionally, I can see that the accused displayed the required intent for the crime. Mens rea includes different mental states, such as intent, recklessness, and negligence. In cases involving second-degree murder, the necessary mens rea is usually the intent to cause either death or serious bodily harm. Based on the information provided in this case, it can be reasonably inferred that Hassan Farhat and the 17 year old boy had the essential intention to harm or cause death to Issah Jünger. When the victim was rushed to the hospital, he barely had a chance of survival since he died not long after. This shows that the suspect clearly had the intent to kill the victim by shooting him in a specific

The victim was killed as a direct consequence of the suspect's intentional gunfire, meeting the actus reus requirement for second-degree murder. Furthermore, the Crown successfully establishes that the accused possessed the necessary mentality, or guilty mentality, for the offense. Further evidence that the accused intended to kill comes from the fact that the victim passed away from his wounds not long after being shot. On the contrary, the Defense's argument against mens rea is mostly based on assumption and other theories and is not supported by any concrete proof. The defense's assertion of the accused's lack of motive or intent is weakened by the absence of a clear explanation for the shooting. The defense's suggestion of self-defense or sudden provocation lacks concrete evidence to support it. Furthermore, the Defense's attempt to discredit eyewitness testimony due to the time of the incident and the potential for errors does not sufficiently undermine the Crown's case. Overall, the Crown's argument provides a more compelling and coherent narrative, supported by evidence that convincingly establishes both actus reus and mens rea. In contrast, the Defense's argument fails to adequately rebut the Crown's case and does not provide sufficient evidence to refute the accusations against the accused.