William Rutledge Essay Sample

1. ) Did Hanouesk hold the needed mental province ( work forces rea ) to be convicted of a offense? why or why non? Why one dont think he has the mental province ( mens country ) of a offense is becasue it was an accident. he bagged into it on error. The Mental province means he has the disire or purpose to hit the pipe line and he didnt so thats why Is say non. 2. ) Which theory discussed in the chapter would enable a tribunal to keep hansouesk reprehensively apt for go againsting the codified regardless of whether he participated in. directed. or even knew about the specific misdemeanors. would be the “Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine” . This philosophy would keep Hanousek reprehensively apt because his behavior was negligent. Based on his negligent behavior the spill took topographic point. Hanousek’s occupation as a route maestro was to do certain that the grapevine was protected based on him neglecting to do certain this and based on him being an authorative figure over the operator holds him reprehensively apt.

3. ) Could the backhoe operator who punctured the grapevine besides be charged with a offense in this state of affairs? Explain The backhoe operator can non be charged with a offense in this instance even though his error is what lead to the accident happening. Because the Hanousek was the supervisor and “could have prevented” the accident from happening the jurisprudence lays the duty entirely on him.

4. ) Supposed that at the test. Hansouesk argued that he should non be convicted because he was non cognizant of the requirments of the cwa. Would this defence be succesful? why or why non? why his defence would non stand a opportunity in tribunal because he knows that he is covering with a unsafe device that would potentially be a danger to the populace. He would at a minimal be guilty of “strict liability” which would enable him to be convicted of a misdemeanor even if he had no cognition of the illegality of the action