who's to blame for this..?

Originally posted by happynow
I realise we aren't quite this advanced yet, but what IF a dead man got injected with drugs(legal or illegal) which brought the dead man back to life and he went out and killed a person. Kind of like a zombie or something. Who would be to blame for this?

the puffer fish?

Originally posted by frogstomp
the drugs may or may not be illegal.
The fellow might have known about the side effects and he might not have.
The core notion is that of capacity: if D, the person who has brought about the actus reus of an offence, is adjudged to have lacked the capacity to make a rational judgment about what s/he was doing, then D is excused as not being responsible and so not criminally liable for the crime charged

It doesn't matter if the drug is legal or illegal ... compare it with drunk driving. Alcohol is legal to use but you will be responsible of the consequence.

... "the core notion is that of capacity" ...

Lets have the drunk driving example again ... if the driver in spe is sooooo drunk that s/he is not capable of making a rational judgement about being able to drive, you will support this person is not responsible for his or her actions and consequences of those actions?

I am not in support of such a law ... ever! As the drunk driver is responsible for his or her actions and consequences in the same manner is a drugs user of a different kind/type of drugs.

Originally posted by Sushill
It doesn't matter if the drug is legal or illegal ... compare it with drunk driving. Alcohol is legal to use but you will be responsible of the consequence.

... "the core notion is that of capacity" ...

Lets have the drunk driving example again ... if the driver in spe is sooooo drunk that s/he is not capable of making a rational judgement about being ...[text shortened]... ctions and consequences in the same manner is a drugs user of a different kind/type of drugs.

Do you anything sensible to say?

Originally posted by happynow
Do you anything sensible to say?

No .. should I?

Originally posted by Sushill
No .. should I?

Yes, If we were 5 years old. There is an age limit here of 14, which means pretty much everyone knows drunk-drivers are naughty.

It depends on the situation.

A more interesting way to look at this would be if a person was placed in a situation that they could not handle and went out and killed. i.e. America causing Iraqi people to kill each other.

Who is to blame for these murders? The people in Iraq or America?

Originally posted by happynow
Yes, If we were 5 years old. There is an age limit here of 14, which means pretty much everyone knows drunk-drivers are naughty.

It depends on the situation.

Which part of my post didn't make sense then?

Originally posted by Sushill
Which part of my post didn't make sense then?

1+1=2 makes sense.

Originally posted by Sushill
It doesn't matter if the drug is legal or illegal ... compare it with drunk driving. Alcohol is legal to use but you will be responsible of the consequence.

... "the core notion is that of capacity" ...

Lets have the drunk driving example again ... if the driver in spe is sooooo drunk that s/he is not capable of making a rational judgement about being ...[text shortened]... ctions and consequences in the same manner is a drugs user of a different kind/type of drugs.

that the drug is legal does have import on the sellers culpability ,which is what I was refering to.
there is not one mention in the original post that the drug was known to cause that reaction.
Driving drunk is a crime ,in and of itself, so any consequence of it is a criminal act.

Originally posted by frogstomp
that the drug is legal does have import on the sellers culpability ,which is what I was refering to.
there is not one mention in the original post that the drug was known to cause that reaction.
Driving drunk is a crime ,in and of itself, so any consequence of it is a criminal act.

Yes. Drink-driving is a crime, but even a drink-driver could be found innocent or found to have less/more guilt then other DD's.

It depends on the situation.

Originally posted by happynow
Yes. Drink-driving is a crime, but even a drink-driver could be found innocent or found to have less/more guilt then other DD's.

It depends on the situation.

ah yes , you have seen my point... crimes are facts specific and the original post didn't have enough facts to make a decision on.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Too bad ,,it's the law in civilized countries.

Mens rae means guilty mind - in this case the defendant was not rational at the time of the crime, but he is guilty of the act - so Actus Reus - your halfway there.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Mens rae means guilty mind - in this case the defendant was not rational at the time of the crime, but he is guilty of the act - so Actus Reus - your halfway there.

the actus reus wasnt at issue here.
edit,, remember,, it was the original post that defined the situation.

Originally posted by CliffLandin
Mens rae means guilty mind - in this case the defendant was not rational at the time of the crime, but he is guilty of the act - so Actus Reus - your halfway there.

and oh btw:
Section 1751( a) of Title 18 incorporates by reference 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1112. 18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees. Murder in the first degree is punishable by death.

Originally posted by frogstomp
and oh btw:
Section 1751( a) of Title 18 incorporates by reference 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1112. 18 U.S.C. § 1111 defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, and divides it into two degrees. Murder in the first degree is punishable by death.

Murder in the first degree isn't punishable by death in every state.

Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands have no capital punishment. So if you are gonna do the crime, do it there.