Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
please respond to Aidan with 150 words
I believe that Jane should absolutely be charged for the fireman’s death. As we read about the terms Mens rea and Actus rea we already can determine that she meant for the firefighters to be there as she was the one who purposefully set her business on fire which in of itself is a crime punishable by law. This more so falls under the lines of Actus Rea which is committing the crime itself. As for the actual mentality of killing the fireman, it’s harder to say she meant for that to happen. While it is a malicious action to set a dangerous fire to her work for money it’s safe to say she didn’t do it to kill the fireman in the end.
As stated at the beginning of the example, she was falling on hard times and only lit her business on fire for the insurance money to help her and her business as a whole including her employees. So her mentality throughout the process was to help those around her and her business, so to say she was doing it out of deadly intent is a stretch but still understandable since a fire can always be deadly regardless of the circumstances as seen by the fireman’s death.
So while she did in fact light her business on fire for money, and did in fact understand that it was fraud, I don’t think she meant to kill the fireman, but this does not excuse what she did and any punishment she deserves. She lit her business on fire for fraudulent reasons and someone died due to said fire, so while it may not have been her intent, it still happened and always had a chance of happening. So she should be held accountable to the fullest extent for causing such a deadly situation and causing a man’s death in the process even if it wasn’t for the sake of killing him.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.