Answer:
The act of inflciting bodily harm to the woman is a crime under "actus reus".
But there is no intentional crime committed under "mens rea".
So, the act doesn't qualify as a crime.
Explanation:
In criminal law,<u> "actus reus" is when a person physically harms another person</u> along with <u>"mens rea" which is the mental intention of doing the crime and planning it</u>. That means that an act can be considered a crime only when the actus reus and mens rea are hand-in-hand.
In the given scenario, Joseph's act of slamming his hand on the table is the result of his anger on being served a non-vegetarian dish even though he is a vegan. And this resulted in the bodily harm of the woman nearby. And this act of inflicting bodily harm to another person is not an intentional act, for Joseph did not pre-plan it. So, we can safely say that <u>the action does not constitute a criminal act.
</u>
This would be an example of an "Alford Plea". An Alford Plea is not the same as a guilty plea, as it is used by those who claim innocence but plead guilty for a lesser sentence. This is one of the many issues with American Law, as we are forcing those who may not be guilty into accepting a guilty deal to lessen their time.
I hope this helps! :)
Answer:
According to me...I won't feel confident when making that decision because that decision will be based on the rules that I must follow and I also believe that when I'm taking a decision is going to be based on what situation you are in.
So decisions are not suppose to be based on rules because everyone have a right to take or make a decision that is suitable for themselves.
Answer:
If a personal injury was sustained as a result of someone else's negligence then said person and/or entity would be legally liable for the damages caused. Be it to a person or property.
Explanation:
Answer:
Explanation:
The President has the power either to sign legislation into law or to veto bills enacted by Congress, although Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses