Monday, April 3. 2017

Today's schedule is A-B-C-D

A Block Introduction to Law 9/10 - Today we'll look through the physical and mental elements of a crime. We'll focus on the three types of criminal intent and understand the difference between Strict Liability and Indictable Offenses in Canada (remember that in Canada we do not have felony and misdemeanor offences). I'll have you work on questions 1-7 on page 74 of the All About Law textbook.

B Block Law 12 - Today we will be looking at the Criminal Code of Canada and we will focus our attention on violent crimes - specifically the categories of homicide in Canada. We'll learn the difference between culpable and non-culpable homicide and examine the levels of murder (first and second degree) as well as manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary)...all done through an interpretive play involving my swivel chair, the floor and a garbage can. We'll look at R. v. Nette (2001) and answer questions 1-4 on the case together and to end the class.

The Nette case deals with "causation" and murder which helps with questions 3-4-5 on p. 221 which I'll have you work on as well. In terms of the Nette case and causation the citation states:

A 95-year-old widow who lived alone was robbed and left bound with electrical wire on her bed with a garment around her head and neck. Sometime during the next 48 hours, she died from asphyxiation. During an RCMP undercover operation, the accused told a police officer that he had been involved in the robbery and death. The accused was charged with first degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Criminal Code -- murder while committing the offence of unlawful confinement -- and tried before a judge and jury. At trial, he claimed that he had fabricated the admission. He testified that he had gone alone to the victim’s house only with intent to break and enter, that the back door to the house was open as though someone already had broken into the home, and that he left after finding the victim already dead in her bedroom. The trial judge charged the jury on manslaughter, second degree murder and first degree murder under s. 231(5) of the Code. In response to a request from the jury that he clarify the elements of first degree murder and the “substantial cause” test, the trial judge essentially reiterated his charge. Overall, he charged that the standard of causation for manslaughter and second degree murder was that the accused’s actions must have been “more than a trivial cause” of the victim’s death while, for first degree murder under s. 231(5), the accused’s actions also must have been a “substantial cause” of her death. On two occasions, however, once in the main charge and once in the re-charge, he described the standard of causation for second degree murder as “the slight or trivial cause necessary to find second degree murder” instead of “more than a trivial cause”. The jury found the accused guilty of second degree murder and the Court of Appeal upheld that verdict. The only ground of appeal both before the Court of Appeal and this Court concerned the test of causation applicable to second degree murder.

C Blocks Social Studies 11 - Today we'll continue with our look at Canada's involvement in World War One. Today, I'll have you watch the Canada: A People's History episode "Go Out and Meet Death Bravely" along with the "Front Lines - The Trenches" movie below. After you work on a chart that briefly explains each battle, identifies Canada's role in them, and explains the results (impact). Use the resources from today's post below for Ypres (2nd Battle), Somme, Vimy, and Passchendaele (3rd Battle of Ypres). Lastly I'll have you work on questions 1, 2, and 3 from page 39 and question 5 from page 47 of the Counterpoints textbook.

Front Lines - The Trenches by ONFB, National Film Board of Canada

Canadian War Museum Over the Top

How Mustard Gas Works
Canadian War Museum Key Canadian Events WW1
Vetrans Affairs Canada WW1
Passchendaele (1917)
Vimy (1917)
Somme (1916)
Ypres (1915)
BBC WW1 Centenniary

D Block Criminology 12 - Today we are off to the library for our last blog assignment and I'd like you to answer the following:

What characteristics must a good burglar have? What theory of criminal behaviour best predicts the development of a good burglar? If a good burglar is a professional thief then is their career path similar to other professionals like lawyers or doctors? 

Look at Neil Shover's explanation on page 234-237 in the CRIM textbook.... Neal Shover studied the careers of professional burglars and uncovered the existence of a particularly successful type--the good burglar. Shover also discovered that a person becomes a good burglar through learning the techniques of the trade from older, more experienced burglars. Also try to answer:

What can you do to reduce the chances of being victimized by a good burglar?