A - Introduction to Law 9/10 - Today we are going to the library so that you may continue your work on the crime scene investigation project (Clue Us In). You'll have some time as the week goes along to finish up this crime scene reconstruction activity and the assignment is due next Tuesday, October 26th, 2010. I posted the details of this assignment on this blogsite so check out the Day 19 (Tuesday October 5th) entry.
D - Geography 12 - Today we're back in the library to continue our research on the Orting high school case study. Should the town of Orting, Washington, build a new high school to attract people to their community or not? What will the impact of increased population be on the tiny town that sits in the shadows of Mt. Rainier? The assignment is in your week 5 package and was posted on this blogsite so check out the Day 22 (Friday October 8th) entry. Just a note of caution...
What is the greatest danger to Orting? Of all that could potentially happen at Mount Rainier what poses the greatest threat? Now ask yourself what triggers that threat? What causes it to happen? Last think about the statistical likelyhood of that event happening. How likely is the event to occur in the next 5, 10, 100, or 1000 years? Check out the risk analysis section of the COTF website for help here. In case you missed it check out the Mega Disasters video that shows you the greatest potential danger to Orting at the History Channel Mega Disaster America's Volcano site.
C - Law 12 - On Friday I gave you a bit of work to complete on the mental & physical elements of a crime along with strict liability (questions 1-3 on page 67 and questions 3-7 on page 74). You'll have a bit of time to finish those questions today and then as a class we'll read through and discuss the questions on the case questions from R. v. Thornton (1990) on p.70 and R. v. Sansregret (1985) on p.72.
NOTE: On Friday I quickly gave you an example of an aggravated sexual assault case involving HIV (an this relates to the R. v. Thornton case today). The case involved Trevis Smith and a review of the decision (sentenced to five and a half years in 2007 and was paroled this past February) can be found here at CBC News. So in terms of Wilful Blindness because of the Sansregret case, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the concepts of recklessness and wilful blindness are not the same and that it is wise to keep the two concepts separate. The court then defined each concept as follows (Stuart: 211):
- Recklessness involves knowledge of a danger or risk and persistence in a course of conduct which creates a risk that the prohibited result will occur,
- Wilful blindness arises where a person who has become aware of the need for some inquiry declines to make the inquiry because he does not wish to know the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment