WDW101Y1 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Indictable Offence, Culpable Homicide, Fundamental Justice

56 views2 pages

brownbeetle36

23 Oct 2012

School

UTSG

Department

Woodsworth College Courses

Course

WDW101Y1

Professor

Jim Davies

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

S. 7 ccrf: life, liberty and security of the person, must be in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice . Undue exploitation of sex or of sex . namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene. 159 violates s. 15 ccrf, discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. 265(1) a person commits a assault when: without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly. Consequence/causation is sometimes but not always an essential element of a crime. Crime: actus reus + mens reus consequences, and committed in circumstances defined in the code. Actus reus: direct or indirect, causation is not required. Requires the crown to prove the absence as part of the actus reus. If there is consent there is no actus reus of assault unless the consent was obtained through: Fault: the state of mind an individual is in when committing the criminal act.

Related Questions

hen finding solutions to this problem. Assessment Directions: For this exercise, choose 10 statements from those given below and write a brief responseâtwo to three sentencesâstating your position and explaining at least two reasons why you hold it. 1. Violence is better than reason in dealing with dangerous situations. 2. Only the good die young. 3. Itâs human nature to be greedy. 4. Capital punishment is a deterrent to crime. 5. If people are unemployed, they must be lazy. Thereâs a job for everyone who really wants to work. 6. Everyone has a value system of some kind. 7. We know ourselves better than others know us. 8. An unborn fetus is a human being. 9. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. 10. Truth is an intensely personal matter: What is true for me is not necessarily true for you. 11. Winning isnât everythingâitâs the only thing. 12. Challenging anotherâs opinion is a sign of intolerance. 13. Atheists are generally moral people. 14. Censorship is evil. 15. Black people are better athletes than white people. 16. The oil companies manipulate gasoline prices. 17. Getting your feet wet can cause a cold. 18. Homosexuals are as likely to control their sexual urges as are heterosexuals. Please format your responses like this: 1. Original statement 2. My position on that statement 3. Two reasons why I hold this position EN3220: Module 3 Stating and Justifying a Position Exercise 3.1 Stating an Opinion on a Position 2 Submission Requirements: ï· Submit your responses for grading in a Microsoft Word document. ï· Adhere to Standard English grammar, spelling, and punctuation requirements. ï· Use 12-point Arial font and double-space

emeraldsea-lion216

Please write down your response after reading the paragraphs. (At least 5 sentences long, 150-200 words.)

Personally I do not think there is a fine line between technology and human innovation. These two are essentially the same thing and are oftentimes used synonymously with one another. I say this because new technology is based on our speculations/imagination and our ability to put our ideas into fruition. We are limited by our capabilities and those capabilities just happen to be what our past ideas have created. Therefore, I do not think there is a fine line between technology and human innovation.

I think human innovation has always been dependent on technology and current issues. It makes sense because nobody goes out of their way to create a weapon if war wasn't an idea on everybody's mind. I solely believe if North Korea didn't have intentions of violence, they wouldn't be testing weapons in the ocean. Obviously the biggest issue today is medical care and I do believe all of our recent developments have been reliant on the technology we already have, and in the case we don't, we try and develop it ourselves. That's the greatest thing about human innovation. We are constantly pushing ourselves beyond our limitless potential. But yes, human innovation is completely dependent on technology.

In the 1990s, Pfizer, Inc., developed a new antibiotic called Trovan (trovafloxacin mesylate). Tests showed that in animals Trovan had life-threatening side effects, including joint disease, abnormal cartilage growth, liver damage and a degenerative bone condition. In 1996, an epidemic of bacterial meningitis swept across Nigeria. Pfizer sent three U.S. physicians to test Trovan on children who were patients in Nigeria's Infectious Disease Hospital. Pfizer did not obtain the patients' consent, alert them to the risks, or tell them that Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) was providing an effective conventional treatment at the same site. Eleven children died in the experiment, and others were left blind, deaf, paralyzed or brain damaged. Rabi Abdullahi and other Nigerian children filed a suit in a U.S. federal district court against Pfizer, alleging a violation of a cursory international law norm prohibiting involuntary medical experimentation on humans. Did Pfizer violate any ethical standards? What might Pfizer have done to avert the consequences? Explain.

WDW101Y1 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Indictable Offence, Culpable Homicide, Fundamental Justice

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

WDW101Y1 Lecture Notes - Anal Sex, Indictable Offence, Culpable Homicide

WDW101Y1 Lecture Notes - Secondary Sex Characteristic, Sylvia Fedoruk, Criminal Negligence

WDW101Y1 Lecture Notes - Presing

Related Questions