Monday, March 19, 2018

Tuesday, March 20. 2018

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

C Block Criminology 12 - Today we'll start with our violent crime quiz (you may use your notes) and then when we're done we'll start with our look at property crimes, where we'll discuss the history of theft and make sense of the differences between occasional and professional thieves. You'll need to answer the following:

  1. What are the differences between a professional and an occasional thief?
  2. What is a "situational inducement"?
  3. What is a "Booster", a "Snitch", and a "Fence"? 

D Block Human Geography 11 - Yesterday we took some time to get caught up on work so today I'll have us look at the key question, "Where Are Folk and Popular Leisure Activities Distributed"?Our job today is to look at the differences between folk and popular culture and we'll do this through the lens of music and sport (soccer football, skateboarding, UFC)...another good review can be found here. You'll need to:
  1. Complete the table comparing the origins, diffusion, and distribution of folk and popular culture
  2. Label popular sports with the countries in which they are the most popular and answer
  3. List the elements of the origin and characteristics of folk music; List the elements of the origin and diffusion of popular music; How was soccer (football) transformed from a folk custom into popular culture?; and Despite their anonymous folk origins, what characteristics of organized spectator sports today characterize them as popular culture?

A Block Law 12 -Today we'll move into assault, sexual assault, other sexual offences, robbery, and abduction. In Canada, there are three levels of assault, based on the level of severity and corresponding penalties:

Level One: assault (max penalty 5 years)
Level Two: assault causing bodily harm (max penalty 10 years)
Level Three: aggravated assault (max penalty 14 years)

These levels are identified in section 265 of the Criminal Code. All assaults have two common elements:

1. The accused must have intent to carry out the attack and cause harm.
2. There must be no consent by the victim (for example, as in a boxing match).

Now, legally speaking, parents have rights to use corrective measures in order to discipline children. This issue was raised in the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 case. In its decision, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Section 43 of the Criminal Code which "provides that a parent, teacher, or person acting in the place of a parent is justified in using force to correct a child’s behaviour that is under his or her care provided that the force used is reasonable in all of the circumstances". So what is "force"? The force must be used for educative or corrective purposes (not as a form of punishment) relating to restraining, controlling, or expressing disapproval of the actual behaviour of a child capable of benefiting from that correction; the force cannot result in harm or the prospect of harm.

My question is "Should parents have the full authority to discipline their children as they see fit or should parents never be allowed to use physical force on their children"?

After our discussion I'll have you work on questions 2, 3 and 4 on page 231 of the text. To help...

Implying death ( bodily harm or burning property (burn/destroy) *Must be believable and Must be imminent
CC 265 Assault
Any unwanted application of force against another person
Level 1 simple assault
Level 2 assault causing bodily harm
Level 3 aggravated assault
CC 273 Sexual AssaultAny unwanted sexual contact
Level 1 any touching (molestation).
Level 2 with a weapon
Level 3 aggravated (endanger life or wound/maim/disfigure)

Spanking children could soon be illegal in Canada

B Block Introduction to Law 10 - Today I'll give you time to finish your work on questions 1-7 on page 74 from the All About Law textbook.  Next, you will be responsible for working on the case questions from R. v. Thornton (1990) q 1-4 p.70 ( Main Question: Did Thornton have a legal duty arising out of the common-law to inform the Red Cross of his HIV status?) and R. v. Sansregret (1985) q 1-6 p.72 (Main Question: Is willful blindness relevant to a mistake of fact in consent in a sexual assault charge?)

No comments: