| Justifiable Homicide: … justifiable homicide in criminal law stands on the dividing line between an excuse, justification and an exculpation. In other words, it takes a case that would otherwise have been a murder or another crime representing intentional killing, and either excuses or justifies the individual accused from all criminal liability or treats the accused differently from other intentional killers – as in self defense. |
| Reckless Endangerment: A person commits the crime of reckless endangerment if the person recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. “Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. |
| Depraved Heart Murder: … an action that demonstrates a "callous disregard for human life" and results in death. In most states, depraved heart killings constitute either second-degree murder or first-degree manslaughter. |
| Felony Murder Doctrine: If a death occurs during a felony, it is considered to be first degree murder and all of the felony’s participants can be charged and found guilty of murder. |
| First Degree Murder: … the person killed the other person with malice aforethought and the killing was premeditated. |
School is starting soon and a new crop of law students will begin their struggles with how our codes of criminal justice have come to look at attributions of blame, the paradigm being action that resulted in the death of another person. The students will obsess about the actus rea and the mens rea – what did the defendant do? what was the result? what was their mental state when they did it? And their professors will describe cases after case, handed down over the centuries, that illustrate the permutations of blame. Then they will create diabolical hypothetical cases for the final exams approximating the judges’ worst courtroom nightmares.
And how do we assign blame when it has to do with countries, or their leaders? What about the mass killing of others in those endeavors we call War? What Laws govern such things? First, there is the Casus Belli, the case for war. Then there is a concept known as a Just War. Just War Theory has two sets of criteria. The first establishing jus ad bellum, the right to go to war; the second establishing jus in bello, right conduct within war:
| CASUS BELLI |
| … is a Latin expression meaning the justification for acts of war. It is usually distinguished from Casus Foederis, with Casus Belli being used to refer to offenses or threats directly against a nation, and Casus Foederis to refer to offenses or threats to another, allied, nation with which the justifying nation is engaged in a mutual defense treaty, such as NATO… In the post World War Two era, the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except as a means of defending themselves against aggression, or unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation. The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries which embark on wars of aggression. In effect, this means that countries in the modern era must have a plausible Casus belli for initiating military action, or risk possible UN sanctions or intervention. |
| JUST WAR: Jus ad bellum |
A Just War is one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects or to restore what it has seized unjustly. In modern terms just war is waged in terms of self defence or in defence of another with sufficient provocation a nation could justify strike first in self defence or defence of an innocent third party and must have the right intention.
|
| JUST WAR: Jus in bello |
|
Once war has begun, just war theory also directs how combatants are to act:
|
The United Nations doesn’t have the authority of a court. We’re just not that civilized on Planet Earth. So there’s no real JUST WAR cop or Casus Belli court. But if you go by these criteria, they fit fine for al Qaeda and the Taliban – the case for war is solid, a Just War. No problem. But our Invasion of Iraq fails in all sorts of ways. I want to review it, because I am getting hopeful that the Cheney testimony in the CIA Leak case will be released, and will reawaken the whole question of the Iraq War itself.
I know I’ve mentioned the book recently but I’m now reading “The Prosec ution of George W. Bush For Murder” by Vincent Bugliosi. I thought I was upset about the Iraq War but Bugliosi has me beat. He lays out the case fact by fact. In the book he writes”Although I have never heard before what I am suggesting in this book–that Bush be prosecuted for murder in an American courtroom–many have argued that “Bush should be prosecuted for war crimes”. The author points out that Bush as governor of Texas had the highest rate of executions of any governor in American history.” I wasn’t sure that I could read the book without getting upset but it seems to have the opposite affect. Finally someone is calling Bush what many have been thinking and not daring to say outloud. Bugliosi is not shy about telling you right from wrong.
In this weeks Sunday NYTimes op-ed Frank Rich gets why Walter Cronkite deserved the most trusted man title. .Rich makes fools of the current anchors of nightly news and especially David Gregory of MTP. If these reporters did their jobs and dared to ask the questions that mattered we might not be at war in Iraq today. We sorely need reporters like Cronkite today. I used to write to Tim Russert every timeI saw a guest like Cheney was going to be on in the morning and I write ask Cheney such and such a question as if your own sons life depended on it. I never did. I liked Russert as a person but I never felt satisfied that he followed up with Cheney when we all knew he was lying about Iraq’s connection to 911.