Gary and Sandra’s Relationship
The issue of Gary having initially fallen in love with Sandra was out of sheer free will for both parties. This is to me that everyone has a free will to choose with whom to fall in love with and even marry. As for Sandra having separated from Gary and moving on to fall in love with Terry is not a crime but action taken out of her free will. This means that it was her choice to make on whether to be with Gary or Terry. But then, when Sandra chooses to move in with Terry, Gary goes way too far to prove that he is not ready to lose her. His actions among other things prove that he is even ready to break the law in order to prevent Sandra from loving another man. Basically, Gary’s action in trying to protect his love are a prove of his criminal liability.
Criminal liability refers to a situation when a person can be held responsible for having broken the law. When one commit acts that are deemed to be in contravention with law, then they are said to have committed a crime. It is also important to note that for criminal liability to be concrete, then the factor of intention must be present. When Gary approaches Terry and threatens to harm him if he does not stop seeing Sandra, his liability to crime is positive. This is because in some situations, speeches and utterances made can constitute a crime. For instance, a criminal threat occurs when one threatens to kill or physically harm another person. Again on the evening when Gary threatened to inflict serious injuries on Terry, the intention was to intimate and ensure that the connection between the two is no more. For instance, the U.S law requires through its statutes that; 1702 a) A person shall not by words or conduct knowingly: (1) Threaten another person; and (2) as a result of the threat, place the other person in reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily injury. The further there is an elaboration of the consequences that such an offender would face; (b) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000, or both. This is to mean that Gary is liable to the offence of criminal threatening having threatened to cause bodily harm or injuries to Terry.
On another instance when things escalate between Gary and Terry, Gary punches him on the face. Before going to confront Terry, Gary had planned to use violation if it required him to do so. Having assaulted Terry by punching him, it shows that he was prepared and had the intention of being violent. Assault can be described as the act of inflicting physical harm on a person. For instance, in the case of Ladner v. United States (1958), the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison for assaulting two federal officers. Despite the case and trial being a complex one, Ladner served time prison for his crime. In the United states, assault is basically a crime that is dependent on the seriousness of the attack or type of weapon used. For the case of Gary, there was no weapon used as he just punched Terry on the face. Although considered as an assault, the offence will carry less punishment as compared to the use of a gun or machete. But for this offence, Gary is liable to criminal charges.
Criminal Liability Defined
After punching Terry in the face, Gary goes ahead to produce a knife and prods him in the arm. This according to law is an act of assault. Gary stabs Terry and sends him on the floor bleeding. In an assault charge, the use of a crude weapon makes the offence more serious. In the United States, the federal law puts assault into two groups; a felony that is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a misdemeanor that is punishable by one year in prison. In the case of the United States v. George Dull Knife, the defendant arrested and charged with discharging a firearm in relation to a crime of violence and assault with the intention of committing murder. Again the defendant is charged with assault by use of a dangerous weapon. Despite being charged with these offences, the defense team applied to have Dull Knife released on bail. But the magistrate ordered the defendant to be detained because he would pose a risk to other people if released because of his serious nature of crimes. For Gary, he would face up to 10 years in prison if convicted of the assault charges on Terry. This is because his is a serious assault charge and not a misdemeanor.
As Gary walks away after stabbing Terry on the arm, he further threatens to kill him. Gary threatens Terry that next time he would put the knife through his heart. It is clear that anyone who stabs someone through the heart means and intends to kill. In the United States, threatening to kill someone is considered a crime. The Penal Code section 422 defines criminal threats as being willfully threatening to kill or injure someone. Gary was not forced by anyone to threaten Terry but did so willingly. The maximum sentence for threatening to kill someone attracts a jail term of 10 years but such sentences are rare. In the case of Elonis v. United States (2015), the defendant posted information on the internet platform that was threatening in the disguise of exercising his First Amendment Rights. But many people around him knew he had a tendency of threatening people viciously. He was later arrested and charged with sending information that contained threats to kill or injure other people. The defendant used the internet as a means of sending threats to other people including his former wife. As for Gary he conveyed his threats verbally but the words were accompanied by actions. Basically, Gary could be arrested and charged in a court of law for having threatened to kill Garry.
The other crime that Gary is liable for is murder. After stabbing Terry and leaving him for dead, Terry later dies at the hospital that evening. Although there are factors that quickening Terry’s death, like the condition he has with his blood and the fact that the ambulance got lost and delayed, Gary is directly tied to the death of Terry. He initiated the excessive bleeding with the injury that he inflicted on Terry’s arm. For the issue of intent, it is clear that Gary did intend to kill Gary because he even tells him as he backs away that next time the knife would go through his heart. So there is a very big likelihood that Gary would be tried in a court of law for murder. The report is inconclusive as to whether Terry might have been saved had the ambulance arrived in time. This is because as much as the ambulance did not respond accordingly and as expected, Gary should have kept out of trouble by solving his issues the right way or avoid stabbing Terry. Again why hadn’t the blood disorder that prevented clotting kill Terry before? He only succumbed to excessive bleeding after being injured by Gary. This is a clear proof that Gary initiated Terry’s death. For Gary if convicted of murder the punishment might be a life sentence or even the death penalty. Generally, the punishment for 1st degree murder ranges from serving decades or life in prison. This might be with or without the possibility of parole. In the case of State of Washington v. Nealy Harris (1966) the court held that the killing of a person, unless it is excusable or justifiable is murder in the second degree if (1) it is committed with a design to effect the death of the person killed or of another, but without prior knowledge; or (2) when perpetrated by someone involved in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit.
Conclusion
Generally, the case of Gary is that he must face criminal proceedings and is going to be charged in a court of law for crimes and misdemeanors ranging from criminal threats, assault to murder. Some of this crimes are well connected because for instance after threatening Terry he went ahead to punch, stab and eventually Terry succumbed to his injuries. If Gary is going to be charged for every single crime he has committed, then his prison sentence if convicted might be a long time. Basically, each of the crimes attracts a minimum of one year in prison if convicted. the court should take tough actions without any discrimination either based on status so that justice will be served at the end of the day. Also, since there is enough evidence concerning this issue the judgment should not take long since justice delayed is and justice is denied. Thus when the court achieves all these, it will act as a warning to other human beings who take the law into their hands and end up harming others and it ensure that we live in a peaceful environment where everything is done under well-constructed laws and regulations and people will feel free and enjoy their democratic rights at the end of the day
Case Laws
Ladner v. United States. (1958).
United States v. George Dull Knife. (1991).
Elonis v. United States. (2015).
State of Washington v. Nealy Harris. (1966).
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
