Criminal Justice Organizations- Assignment 2 Essay - 1

Criminal Justice Organizations- Assignment 2 - Essay Example Second, there could be little assurance that this leader himself did not employ enthusiasm and generally the passion for his tasks. I found him enthusiastic, passionate and all of these were combined generally to a higher energy level. He is indeed a transformational leader. I am a firm believer of the thought that every organization requires effective leadership style. In the case of my organization with that leader I mentioned above, his usage of transformational leadership was effective at some point. I believe that the nature of our jobs or daily activities require much higher energy, and so motivational considerations. For this reason, the leader together with his leadership style was simply on the right tract. I therefore argue that the type of leadership to be employed in an organization should also depend on its nature of jobs or activities and even particularly culture. Thus, at a closer evaluation, I can attest that a motivational leadership, generally the transformational leadership fitted into the requirements and the vital needs of our firm. If someone would ask me if there are other leadership styles that could fit in, my response would be that there are a lot of them. However, I should find them complementary approaches only, because I believe transformational leadership should be the primary requirement of the organization, as far as its needs and the nature of tasks in it are concerned. As to whether there are other leadership styles that could work effectively in o ur organization, the response on this would be that there are simply variety of them in the corner. However, this does not simply contest the fact that the use of transformational leadership was not remarkably necessary, at some point. The nature of the work in the criminal justice organization is highly under both a combination of physiological and psychological undertakings. These require more zeal and passion in the long

Criminal Law Assignment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Criminal Law Assignment - Essay Example (Woolmington v. DPP)1 It is important to mention that for any offence to be proved it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Another important point that needs to be raised is that the actus reus and mens rea of the offence must coincide, however a broad approach int his respect has been adopted by the courts. The main elements required to prove an offence are actus reus, mens rea and the absence of any defence. (Lord Diplock in R v Miller)2 The actus reus and mens rea need to coincide, however the requirement is interpreted broadly. (Fagan v. Commissioner of Police3) One of the situation is where the conduct of the defendant created a situation of danger. (R v. Miller)4 The first point of homicide is murder. The actus reus of murder was provided by Sir Edward Coke in the seventeenth century whereby he stated that the act is committed if the defendant ‘unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in rerum natura under the Queenâ€⠄¢s peace’. The definition of unlawfully does not include the killing of for example the use of reasonable force for self defence (Re a (Children)5. Clearly, Alice died because of the Barry punched her really hard on her head and therefore this is unlawful. As far as killeth is concerned that refers to the requirement that the acts of the defendant can be attributed to be a legal cause of death. Clearly the act of Barry had led to the death of Alice. As far as killing of the reasonable creature in rerum natura is concerned it means that a human life is taken. Clearly this is satisfied as Alice had died. Finally Queen’s peace means that it must have been within England and not the killing of an enemy at war. It can be assumed that Alice’s death occurred in England. Therefore on the facts the actus reus of murder has been satisfied. The next element is that of mens rea of murder which has been termed as ‘malice aforethought’. However, to be precise th e mens rea is the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (Moloney)6 Intention discussed in Woollin and applied by Matthwes and Alleyne7 was described as defendants aim or purpose was to kill or cause grievous bodily harm or he know of such harm as being a virtually certain consequence of such an act, and any level below that of virtual certainty would not suffice. On the facts it is more than evident that Barry clearly did not possess the intention nor was he virtually certain of the consequences. Thus it is quite clear that the mens rea for murder is not satisfied. As far as voluntary manslaughter is concerned it is not relevant to the facts at hand as there was neither provocation or was there any diminished responsibility. Thus voluntary manslaughter in respect of the facts will not be argued. The next step is that of involuntary manslaughter. The first manslaughter that would be considered is that of reckless manslaughter. The change brought about by Moloney means that for manslaughter recklessness will suffice. However, on the facts it can be said that Barry was not subjectively reckless as he was not aware of the fact that Alice had an exceptionally thin skull. The next in line is gross negligence manslaughter which requires proof of a high degree of negligence. The approach can be seen from Lord Atkin’s judgment in Andrews v. DPP8 where he stated ‘[In the older cases] expressions will be found which indicate that to cause death by any lack of due care will amount to