Study Guides (247,963)
Canada (121,192)
Philosophy (375)


3 Pages
Unlock Document

Philosophy 2080
Jeannie Gillmore

Illegal immigrant -Are they criminals? Professor.. ? would say violating a normative law, but not a serious offence. Philosophical problems with Davio -Justice Sapinka is a legal realist, as he thinks that a judge would convict him juts because the judge wants the case to come out in such a way that he had predetermined the outcome. He let him go, but he lacked the mens rea, and possibly even the voluntary act. -This allows you to use drunkenness as a general defence, as long as if you are drunk enough that you become an automaton. Criminal code now says that you can not rely on self-induced intoxication as an offence. Supreme Court says you can use it for any defence. -Specific intent offences are acceptable offences to use drunkenness as a defence for. Read appendix at the back about this. R. vs. Perka -Drug smugglers filled boat with 33.46 tonnes of marijuana. Parked boat in national waters on the Canadian coast. Brought cargo and boat ashore to save their lives. -Argued defence of necessity that they had to either come ashore or drown. Claimed they had no intention of smuggling drugs into Canada. -Sometimes wrong things are done, and they can be excused, but not justified. -In order to comply with the law, you don’t have a moral choice that would allow you to comply. (Not smuggling drugs and dying.) Compliance with the law would pose an intolerable burden on them (drowning). -Situations of imminent peril makes your actions “normatively involuntary”. There must be no legal alternative. -Not a justification, it’s an excuse. Not a vindication or approval, but a moral involuntariness. What are society’s expectations? -Acquitted on their first trial, Supreme Court sent it back to find a legal alternative. -Legal alternative: dump the pot, then come ashore. Duress- if you’re under immediate threat, and someone is coercing you to do something bad, then you have no choice other to do than what you did. Case Pickett? -People said to the guy that if he didn’t drive them to the popshop and wait for them while they robbed this place, then they would kill him. One guy shot another person. The guy was convicted because he was there so he was liable too. -Acquitted at trial under offence of duress. -Convicted later on. Drove bank robbers to and from robbery site, shared in the profits. -Court of dunbar says duress is codified. Can’t rely on this offence when someone is compelling you to commit murder, treason, armed robbery. Can’t raise it to negate intentions. -Formed a common purpose, not the principle offender. -Common law defence: he did not form a common law intention. Duress should apply. Where there’s no certainty that your inaction will save the victim, there’s no certainty that compliance will mean death. General restrictions on duress should not apply. Duress
More Less

Related notes for Philosophy 2080

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.