https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5 Made with an aura of mystery en-us 2020-05-01 03:05:41 UTC 2020-05-07 16:32:15 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.net/icons/png/1f436.png sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543409541 Provocation is when a person commits a criminal act because they were provoked to, due to the events leading up to the act. This makes them less morally culpable which can help lessen their sentence but they will not be acquitted. This type of defence can only be applies to murder. ]]> 2020-05-01 03:11:17 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543409541 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543409966 The Necessity defence applies when an individual commits a criminal act during an emergency situation. The criteria you must meet for the defence to be successful is: 
"(1) the defendant acted to avoid a significant risk of harm; 
(2) no adequate lawful means could have been used to escape the harm; and 
(3) the harm avoided was greater than that caused by breaking the law."]]> 2020-05-01 03:12:04 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543409966 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543409979 The Duress defence is when an individual commits an act due to these three requirments:
1. There is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury to the actor
2. The individual has reasonable fear that someone will carry out the threat
3. The individual has no reasonable opportunity to escape, unless they commit an unlawful act.]]> 2020-05-01 03:12:05 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543409979 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410074 2020-05-01 03:12:13 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410074 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410115 2020-05-01 03:12:18 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410115 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410143 2020-05-01 03:12:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410143 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410236 Michael John Cairney, shot and killed Stephen Ferguson with a shotgun, and was charged with second degree murder. Cairney used the defence provocation saying he "saw red" and just shot due to being in an argument with Ferguson. ]]> 2020-05-01 03:12:28 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410236 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410385 The accuses were charged with importing cannabis into Canada and with possession for the purpose of trafficking and used the defence of necessity at trail. They claim that they did not plan to import into Canada as their destination was Alaska but that, following a series of mechanical problems they decided (for the safety of the ship and crew) to look for safety on Canadian shoreline and repair. They found cover by a cove. The captain fearing he was going to capsize, ordered the men to offload the cargo. That's when the police arrived.]]> 2020-05-01 03:12:45 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410385 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410402 Nicole Doucet hired a hit man to have her husband killed after years of severe domestic violence. She was caught by the RCMP and charged for trying to kill her husband. She used the Duress defence at trial. She feared for the life of herself and her daughter and after years of no help from authorities she felt she had no other choice. ]]> 2020-05-01 03:12:46 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410402 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410661 Michael John Cairney was originally successful and was acquitted to manslaughter, however it was appealed and he was convicted for second degree murder. Therefore the defence was NOT successful for two main reasons. 
1) The defence argued that he saw red and just shot but after their argument while Cairney was holding a gun to Ferguson's chest, Ferguson left the apartment. Cairney followed him into the hallway and right before shooting him had several moments to think due to answering Fergusons question If "he was going to do something stupid" and Cairney said "yes". This shows that Cairneys mind was processing his actions and does not fully lack a Mens Rea 
2) Cairney initiated the argument, he took the gun and confronted Ferguson's. The crown argued that due to Ferguson's abusive past with Cairneys cousin and Cairney being aware and witness to it he would have known and been prepared for Ferguson's rude reaction to not caring about Cairneys concerns. A "reasonable man" would have anticipated and acted differently.]]> 2020-05-01 03:13:10 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410661 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410714 Although the case is not over Perka has already been successful so far due to being able to meet all three requirements of the necessity defence.
1) By docking in Canada they were doing it for the safety of their passengers during an emergency. They had no choice or everyone could have died.
2) They had no intentions to bring the Cargo into Canada, they are on international waters they didn't have any other option to pull over for safety. Their only option was to find safety on Canadian shores.
3) If they didn't take the cargo into Canada and take the cargo off the ship while trying to fix it the ship could have capsized and killed everyone on board. Drug possession and POSSIBLE trafficking is not worth then the death of multiple people. (No value on human life)]]> 2020-05-01 03:13:16 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410714 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410732 Nicole Doucet was originally not guilty but then was found Guilty by the Supreme Court of Canada. Ms.Doucets defence was that she had no other choice but to have her husband killed to protect herself and her daughter. Especially after authorities wouldn't help her. However, the Supreme Court argued that although she was under threat and she was not forced to commit the act of killing her husband. If she was threaten by someone else that she had to kill her husband otherwise they would kill her; that would have been a valid excuse. Or if the accused had killed her husband herself using the defence 'self-defence'. Due to no one forcing her by life threatening circumstances to specifically kill her husband she was found guilty. ]]> 2020-05-01 03:13:17 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410732 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410804 Thus, Michael John Cairney was not able to meet the defence requirements. His actions did not show someone provoked to an extent to having no idea what their doing. He could not prove the events leading up to the act were completely surprising leading him into a rage, with no time to think. This defence also includes the requirement of the "reasonable man" how they would react in the given situation and Cairney did not fit that criteria. This is a valid excuse defence and if he was successful he would have been given a partial acquittal which means he would have only faced manslaughter. 

]]> 2020-05-01 03:13:26 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410804 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410839 Perka was originally successful in the case and was able to meet all the requirements of the necessity defence (which is a valid excuse). 
1. They were avoiding harm
2. They had to break the law avoid harm
3. Bringing drugs into Canada isn't as bad as the death of everyone on board 
Therefore the accuses were fully acquitted but the verdict was appealed so the final outcome is to be determined. ]]> 2020-05-01 03:13:30 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410839 sabrinar21 https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410849 Therefore, Nicole Doucet was unable to meet the requirements of the case. Yes, she was at threat and needed to save herself. But their was other options then killing her husband and no one was forcing her own life for her to do it which is one of the main criteria needed. This is a very controversial case and personally in my opinion I see the accused reasoning side of the case more then the reasoning from the Supreme Court. This is a valid excuse defence and if she was successful she would have been fully acquitted.]]> 2020-05-01 03:13:31 UTC https://padlet.com/sabrinar21/w14alk7ps0k3tyo5/wish/543410849