The effect of dividends on stock price Coursework

The effect of dividends on stock price - Coursework Example You must also have -a run of consistent good luck. Sudden wealth and big windfall gains depend more on luck, less on skill and knowledge. J. Paul Getty1 was -one such outstanding example. He became the world's richest man and accumulated a vast fortune of over U.S. $ 2 billion but it took him over fifty years of consistent and steady investing to do so. It would be useful for you to ponder over what he says: "Get-rich-quick schemes just don't work. If they did, then everyone on the face of the Earth would be a millionaire. This holds true for stock market dealings as it does for any other form of business activity. Don't misunderstand me. It is possible to make money and a great deal of money-in. the stock market. But it can't be done overnight or by haphazard buying and selling. The big profits go to the intelligent, careful and patient investor, not to the reckless and overeager speculator." (Navjot 57) In the investment market, the heart of the investment process consists of selection, timing, and price. It is all a question of selecting the right company, buying shares in it at the right time and price, and subsequently selling them at the right time and price. ... That will depend on the following four factors: (i) The amount of money you initially invest; (ii) The period over which the money is invested; (iii) The rate at which the invested capital appreciates in value; and (iv) The income you receive from your invested capital during this period. Therefore, to achieve investment success you should keep these four factors in mind while taking decisions on selection, timing and price. But this is not all. Successful investing goes for beyond selection, timing and price. It involves the setting of personal investment objectives, formulating an investment plan and adopting a suitable investment strategy. The overall objective of every investor is to make money. To go further, it is to make of every investor is to make money. To go further, it is to make money at a rate that beats the rate of inflating. In other words, the board objective of all investment is to increase, or at least preserve, the purchasing power of invested capital. For a successful investor it is necessary to have a well-defined plan, backed by a carefully conceived investment strategy. This will help you to keep your impulses under control and reduce the subjective element in your investment decisions. A good investment plan is by itself not enough to guarantee investment success. Sometimes, even the best investment plans have flaws, and go awry when implemented in practice. But the fact that you have a plan will stack the odds in your favor and give you a fair chance to win. A well-conceived plan will improve your average results and raise your general level of performance. INVESTMENT PRINCIPLES The art of successful investment rests on the foundation of certain basic principles, which generally hold good for all times and places. Moreover, these

Media And Childhood Obesity

Media And Childhood Obesity Obesity is among one of the many global epidemics. Its impact affects all age groups. The attention of international and national foci has been sparked by the reported rising of prevalence of child and adolescent obesity for preventative and management action. (Bromfield, 2009). Childhood obesity is a major public health problem. A main contributing factor to childhood obesity has been identified as food advertising during childrens television programs (Udell Mehta, 2008). Media is present to inform the public and present them with arguments that support or oppose solutions to childhood obesity. Obesity affects approximately 20% of the youth in America and this number is always rising. The media can define public perceptions on issues by choosing what to present and how this information is presented. This technique is called framing and can define what problems are perceived to be important and what the causes and solutions might be. It is hypothesized that media has a negative infl uence on the obesity of children. Past research will further help investigate this problem. In an article by Harris, Bargh, and Brownell (2009), it is hypothesized that food advertising on television triggers children to automatically snack on whatever food is available. It is stated that advertisements for high calorie, low nutrient foods are common contributors to the obesity epidemic. Obesity is the fastest growing cause of disease and death in America. (Harris, Bargh, and Brownell). The trend is increasing among young people. Snacking at non-meal times occurred in 58% of food ads during childrens programming. Food advertising to children portrayed unhealthy eating behaviors with positive outcomes. An important source of priming influences is the media, including television programs and advertisements. Food and beverage advertisements convey extremely powerful food consumption cues, including images of attractive models eating, snacking at non-meal times and positive emotions linked to food consumption (Harris, Bargh, and Brownell). The messages presented in television f ood advertising have the potential to act as real world primes and lead to equivalent eating behaviors. The article predicted that food advertising that conveys snacking and fun will automatically prompt eating behavior among adults as well as children. Experiment 1 in this study proved that snacking while watching commercial TV with food advertisements for 30 min. per day would lead to a weight gain of almost 10 pounds per year. Childrens behavior was consistent with what they saw on television, thus an automatic connection between what they saw and how they reacted due to the effect of food advertisements. In Experiment 2, it was predicted that food advertising would also prime eating behavior among an adult sample, and whether effects of eating behavior are due to exposure to images. It was hypothesized that watching food advertising that promoted snacking, fun, and excitement will cause people to eat more of snack foods than advertising that has nutrition benefits. The experimen t supported the direct influence of the snack advertising on consumption. The experiments presented in this article were highly consistent with the hypothesis. Food advertising that promoted snacking, fun, happiness, and excitement contributed to increased food intake. A limitation found in this study is that real world exposure to food advertising occurs in many situations, and it is not definite that other situational factors could not have moderated the advertising effects (Harris, Bargh, and Brownell). Reactivity was minimized and external and internal validity were enhanced when the experimenters mocked TV-viewing conditions in a natural setting. Another limitation is that the specific advertising features that affected eating behaviors can not exactly be pinpointed. More research is needed to make certain that priming snacking versus nutrition benefits and not other features of the advertisements caused the effects on consumption behaviors (Harris, Bargh, and Brownell). In an article by Udell and Mehta (2008), it was hypothesized that the main causes of childhood obesity were advertisements of unhealthy foods, no physical activity, increased time in front of the television, and busy parents. Policy changes to food advertising, encouraging environments for physical activity, better environments for healthy eating and healthy eating strategies were presented as solutions (Udell Mehta). This study found one hundred and sixty-six newspaper articles published that reported on restricting television food advertising to children as a solution to childhood obesity. Young children were found to be vulnerable to manipulation of these food advertisements. This study suggested that children need to be protected from high exposure to advertisements by encouraging them to eat foods with high energy and low nutrients (Udell Mehta). The article found that childhood obesity was caused by advertising of junk foods and a lack of physical activity due to the amount o f television watched. The media often links unhealthy foods with something catchy. For example, McDonalds shows viewers that if a happy meal is purchased, the child will receive a toy. This gives a misperception to children that they will be rewarded when consuming unhealthy foods. Most of the food advertising for children was for high fat content low-nutrient foods, and this was giving children the wrong idea of what is healthy. A positive correlation was found between a childs weight and the amount of time children spent on focusing their attention on media. This study emphasized the role of the media in advertising to children as a factor in childhood obesity. The articles that were analyzed were from July 1st, 2002 to July 1st, 2005, which was a time period where obesity was becoming an outbreak. The articles were 150 words or less and the main themes throughout these articles were concerning restrictions on food advertising to reduce obesity among children. Most of the results were constant with the idea that there should be restrictions on advertising. However, many articles suggested that television advertising had no effect on children and that the inactive lifestyle of a child was the main reason for their weight. The findings of this article were limited because there were only 166 articles selected and there could have been more data to support the hypothesis. The time period was also a limitation in this study because it was only within a 3 year span of time. During those years, obesity had just come to the publics attention so little was known of the actual cause. A study by Bromfield (2009) summarizes the negative physical and nonphysical outcomes for obese children compared with their non-obese peers. Obesity has been identified as a major risk factor for the development of common chronic and disabling conditions. Obese children have an increased risk of psychosocial and mental problems that can continue into adulthood. (Bromfield) Low self-esteem was presented in this article as the most common consequence of obesity. Other studies linked obesity to disordered eating, unhealthy weight control behaviors, bulimia, body esteem, and distorted body image. Obesity can become a child protection concern. Over-feeding of children by adults can be observed as producing extensive harm. Studies found that obese children with low levels of self-esteem engaged more in high-risk behaviors like smoking or alcohol consumption. (Bromfield) Research suggested that children who were overweight would encounter bullying as a consequence of their weight. It was a lso said that levels of education seem to be inversely correlated with body weight. A study in China found lower IQ scores in cases where children were severely obese compared to average weight peers. A survey was conducted for overweight children who rated their school performance and educational future lower than their non-overweight peers. Obese children often blamed their weight as a reason for having few friends and being left out from social activities. Weight bias and stigma in this article refers to weight-related attitudes that are displayed as stereotypes, stigma, rejection, and prejudice towards children because they are overweight or fat. (Bromfield) Current detrimental beliefs in the Western World include fat, ugly, awkward, overeaters, lazy, stupid, and worthless. Treatment for childhood obesity has been considered, including diet changes, exercise, surgery, medication and psychotherapeutic interventions. Parental involvement has been believed to be a main factor for t he most effective intervention. Limitations in this study could be location, as US studies dominated the UK studies. Also, even though research has shown that obese and overweight children are the targets of stigma, more evidence would be needed to understand its nature and impact and how outside factors such as age, race, weight status, and disability act as mediators or moderators (Bromfield). Media influence on childhood obesity is talked about more in research led by Harris and Bargh (2009). Investigation shows that childrens food preferences are acquired through learning processes which have long-lasting effects on diet. It was hypothesized that a specific type of food gains higher taste rating if it was advertised rather than it not being advertised. It was also predicted that there is a correlation between the time spent watching television at a young age and an unhealthy diet later on in their life. This is partially due to television advertising of food products which may influence ones perceived taste of the unhealthy food. It is debated in this article who is to blame for the overweight children: the food industry or the parents. Research has shown the crucial role of parents in early learning of food preferences, as they start to develop early in children. Peers, social institutions, the media, and culture are all considered to play a role in the spread of food p references (Harris Bargh). Children learn about their social world openly through observation of the media. Children learn while watching television that foods filled with calories and are high in fat and sugar taste great and are rewarding to eat. Food products make up the most highly advertised category on television that children watch most, 98% of the foods consisting of low nutritional value. The average child watches 15 television food ads per day, promoting unhealthy food products and thus promoting that eating fatty foods is fun, happy, and cool. (Harris Bargh) Research also shows television viewing and unhealthy eating habits are linked. Effects of television food advertising include greater recollection, preferences and requests to parents for the advertised products. Planned solutions to protect children from the unhealthy influence of television and food advertising included public service media campaigns, parent-child communication, and reductions in exposure to unhea lthy messages on television (Harris Bargh). In this article, it was predicted that preceding television exposure would be related to greater perceived taste and enjoyment of unhealthy, highly advertised foods. Parental interventions were hypothesized to moderate the unhealthy influence of television exposure on diet, which depended on how parents conveyed the message to their children. To test these predictions researchers conducted a study on college students at a private university and a state college; 90 from the public university and 116 from the private university (a total of 206 students). These participants were asked to complete a 30-min online survey of childhood memories of their parents rules and television viewing. The results were constant with the predictions of the experimenter, as perceived taste was associated with consumption. Healthy food consumption was associated with higher taste ratings for healthy foods, and lower taste ratings for unhealthy foods. From the collected data, results indicate that as predicted, healthy food consumption was correlated with higher taste ratings for healthy foods and lower taste ratings for unhealthy foods (Harris Bargh). These findings supported the hypothesis that healthy and unhealthy diets are directly related to the perceived taste of healthy and unhealthy foods. The hypothesis that the relationship between early television viewing and unhealthy eating with children and adolescents continues into early childhood proved to be true with the results. Evidence consistently supports that children who watch more television simply like the taste of unhealthy foods more, especially those which have been highly advertised. Limitations of the data include the discrepancy of self reports. Participants could exhibit self-deception or biases which could lead to results that do not accurately represent participants actual behaviors and beliefs (Harris Bargh). A survey was conducted with college students, however a student population was examined that may not be truly representative of all young adults and college students. Results represent relationships between variables and cannot determine causation. In the final article, Moore and Rideout (2007) explain the importance of marketing communication tools and how it is being used by advertisers to target children. The article discussed how food marketing is impacting children and how it may be linked to obesity. It was explained that internet, specifically, is being used as a marketing communications tool to target children. The focus of this research was on the online marketing practices by advertisers and how their practices affect children. It was hypothesized that exposure to the media, especially online advertisements, influences dietary habits among children and alters their perception on foods (Moore Rideout). The study was conducted on major food advertisers by analyzing their Web sites from the summer to the fall of 2005 and 96 brands of food were used as candidates. There were three parts to the study: the features of the site, the specifics of the brand and how it was presented on the site, and games online. Results indic ated that 85% of the brands had content on their Web site that had content for children. It was estimated that there were around 49 million views by children aged 2-11 per year on Web sites. Of those sites viewed by children, an astounding 73% of them contained one food brand while 27% contained up to 41 brands. It was also observed that of the many food brands on the Web sites, most of them advertised unhealthy foods, like candy, salty snacks, and sugary drinks. The researchers established that the advertisements online influenced childrens perceptions on what to eat. Because children spend so much time online playing games or socializing, they are constantly being exposed to persuasive food advertisements and its leading to the assumption that children are becoming obese because of the lack of physical activities and that their perceptions of food were being altered. Given the right programming, television can be a prevailing tool of entertainment and education for children. Studies have been presented in this paper that television and media has very negative influences. Television is a destructive force through images and advertisements which can influence viewers to make poor food choices or to overeat. Excessive television watching can result in inactivity which leads to weight gain and poor levels of fitness. Children are especially targets of food advertisements and have been proven to be more vulnerable than adults to their influence. Results indicate that media indeed does play a crucial role in the prevalence of obesity among children. (Bargh Brownell, 2009; Bargh Harris, 2009; Moore Rideout, 2007; Udell Mehta, 2007). Evidence shows that advertisements have a strong impact on the way children distinguish what is healthy and what is unhealthy. Also assumed in the previous studies is that advertising companies are capable of persuading children very easily to consume their products and that the amount of advertising should be limited to solve the problem of obesity in America. These articles have provided significant insight on how media influences childrens eating habits. Obesity has become a rapid growing epidemic in this country and it is vital to understand the degree of the dangers of this disease. To further investigate the relationship between the influence of media and childhood obesity, it would be helpful to directly study childrens diets and the amount of time engaged in television and internet. The first step to solving this epidemic is by attacking the problem that has likely caused it-the media.

Frankenstein :: English Literature

Frankenstein The murder of William is the first monstrous act the creature commits. The murder of William came about when the creature arrived in Geneva, when he gazed his eyes on the young boy, the creature’s idea was to not harm the boy but to seize him educate him as a companion an friend, but the idea of the creature backfired when he found out that the boy was related to victor Frankenstein, his creator. When the creature approached William, William’s first reaction was to be frightened scared because from his eyes he could see nothing more than a monster wanting to kidnap him. The creature tried ensuring William that he wasn’t going to hurt but William continued screaming and struggling to escape. The creature said to William â€Å"child what is the meaning of this? I do not intend to hurt you; listen to me†. William wasn’t convinced and then there was a struggle between them. William said to the creature â€Å"let me go, monster! Ugly wretch! You wish to eat me and tear me to pieces†, that of course wasn’t what the creature had in mind, what he was looking for was companionship, a friend, someone who accepted him for who he was. The boy then told the creature â€Å"my papa is a syndic he is M. Frankenstein that was when the creature became furious, because of what he had discovered. The creature grasped William’s throat to silence him and killed him instantly. We encouraged to understand things from the creatures perspective because of the way he is just abandoned by Victor and the way in which the Delacey’s deserted him and we also sympathise with him when he is shot by the father of the young girl that he saved from drowning. We are made to understand the creature’s anger and frustration because for all the good he did for humans he only got treated badly in return. After knowing that he could not continue living with humans any longer, the creature asks victor to create him a companion, someone that he could interact with someone as hideous as him and someone that he could be happy with. In chapter 17 victor takes over telling the story. He is asked by the creature to create a companion for him. At first victor refuses at the creature’s request because he thinks that creating a second monster may only bring joint wickedness and that both creatures may desolate the world. We sympathise with Victor at this point because at that point the creature had killed most of his family, the creature was very malicious at this point. Victor began making the companion for the creature when he saw the

Criminal Law Intoxication Essay

For hundreds of years, it has been assumed that individuals behave more aggressively while under the influence of alcohol. Alcohol related crimes cost the UK taxpayer  £1.8 billion on average per year . However, society has taken an ambivalent attitude towards intoxication. Alcohol consumption is generally depicted as a puritanical moral barrier used to escape pain and the harsh realities of life. Intoxication can conversely be portrayed as a sign of weakness, impeding human reasoning leading individuals to behave in an unacceptable manner. Does this lack of consistency in society’s opinion reflect the clarity of the law as regards to when intoxication can be a defence? Drunkenness was a crime punishable by imprisonment in the form of stocks or a fine from 1607 to 1828. The law in this area concentrates on whether the accused who committed the prohibited act, has the necessary mens rea due to voluntary or involuntary intoxication. There are two extreme approaches that the law could follow on intoxication; the strict subjective theory emphasizes the defendant lacked the required mens rea and supports the idea of absolute acquittal from liability. The absolutist policy theory highlights the importance of public protection and endorses punishment. This arena consisting of the two aforementioned principles have created a tangled web that leaves numerous questions unanswered. The law has tried to achieve an intermediate compromise, rejecting both theorems in favor of adopting different strategies for each criminal offence. An initial distinction has to be drawn between being drunk and being intoxicated. It was expressed in R v Sheehan and Moore that ‘a drunken intent is nevertheless an intent.’ A drunken individual would not be able to use the defence of intoxication, as he is still capable of forming the necessary mens rea. The case of R v Stubbs stated that intoxication needed to be ‘very extreme’ as it is impossible to form the mens rea due to the effect of copious amounts of alcohol. This essay will investigate the situations when intoxication can be used as a defence, analyzing the decision in R v Majewski and its impact on the specific and basic intent dichotomy. The Law Commission has taken a ‘stripped-down approach’ attempting to codify the main principles of the common law regarding voluntary and involuntary intoxication. There is an opinion that ‘there is much in the Report to commend it’ but others have drawn attention to the production of ‘head scratching provisions’ leading some to question whether intoxication should be called a defence at all. The Scottish Law Commission have recognized the difficulty in reforming the law and have stated ‘intoxication as a complete defence in all circumstances would be extremely serious.’ To what extent is intoxication used as a defence in criminal law and should the legal boundaries be clearer? Voluntary Intoxication Voluntary intoxication is defined in the Butler Committee Report as ‘the intentional taking of drink or a drug knowing that it is capable in sufficient quantity of having an intoxicating effect.’ In reality, the law does not support the stringency of this explanation. The main rationale is that the intoxicant must be able to impair the defendant’s rationality and human reasoning abilities. In the case of R v Hardie, the question of whether valium could be classed as an intoxicant arose. The defence was that the valium was only administered for relaxant purposes and according to Lord Parker, ‘there was no evidence that it was known that the appellant could render a person aggressive.’ Does this mean the court has to decide whether a substance is an intoxicant individually for each case? The Law Commission believes this approach is overall inadequate. The law in England and Wales presumes that intoxication is voluntary unless evidence is produced that allows the court or jury to conclude that it was involuntary. Recent government proposals refrain from attaching a definition to ‘voluntary intoxication,’ preventing the creation of a narrow approach developing. Consequently, voluntary intoxication is not a defence in the law but it can become a mitigating factor and be considered as a â€Å"partial excuse† reducing the echelon of criminal liability. This area has caused serious problems in English criminal law, as it is fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty. How should the law decide the effect voluntary intoxication has on the defendant’s liability? The effect of voluntary intoxication on the mens rea of criminal acts is often comprised of the defendant foreseeing the consequences or intending their occurrence. The strict subjective theory emphasizes that intoxication will always be relevant to the outcome of the case but the absolutist policy theory allows the possibility to escape liability completely. Each theorem supports contrasting trains of thought and makes the options for reform more unenviable and unclear. In an attempt to reach a ‘compromise’ and stabilize the theoretical problems and public policy issues involved, the law has categorized criminal offences into two groups; specific and basic intent offences. Despite the broad scope for divergence, the Law Commission has approved the common law’s implementation of this â€Å"midway course† distinction. Specific and Basic Intent Dichotomy ‘All people have the right to a family, community and working life protected from accidents, violence and other negative consequences of alcohol consumption.’ The essence of the law in England and Wales is not dissimilar to this aim in that intoxication can provide a defence to crimes that are of specific intent, but not to those that are of basic intent. The House of Lords in the leading case of Majewski depicted this approach, which has been dubbed a ‘dichotomy.’ They declared it must be proved in specific offences that the defendant lacked the necessary mens rea at the time of the offence. It is for the prosecution to establish the actual intent of the defendant, taking into account the fact that he was intoxicated. In crimes of basic intent, the actuality that intoxication was self-induced provides the necessary mens rea. The original distinction between crimes of specific and basic intent initially appeared to be clear: the courts did not want a defenda nt to escape liability for his crimes caused during his intoxication. In practice, the distinction is difficult to ascertain and has created incongruity in the law. The courts also desired the dichotomy to be flexible allowing partial defences and mitigation in some cases. Simester argues this similarity is ill founded, as ‘intoxication is a doctrine of inculpation†¦and work in opposite directions.’ Simester’s view regarding the dichotomy is persuasive but I believe clarification is needed before the law can be deemed acceptable. Lord Simon developed another analysis where ‘the prosecution must in general prove that the purpose for the commission of the act extends to the intent expressed or implied in the definition of the crime.’ Another approach put forward was the ‘ulterior intent test,’ which was more widely accepted. This supports the idea that in specific intent crimes, the mens rea extends beyond the actus reus and in basic intent crimes, the mens rea goes no further than the constituents in the actus reus. However, the most prevalent explanation, the â€Å"recklessness test,† which was given by Lord Elwyn-Jones and later approved in the House of Lord’s decision in the case of R v Caldwell. An individual is Caldwell-type reckless if the risk is obvious to an ordinary prudent person who has not given thought to the possibility of there being any such risk, or if the individual has recognized that there is some risk and has nevertheless persisted in his actions. This test states intoxication can only be relevant to crimes that require proof of intention and it is immaterial to crimes that are committed recklessly. Lord Diplock took the objective view that classification of offences into basic or specific intent was irrelevant where â€Å"recklessness† was satisfactory to form the mens rea. However, the distinction between the varying offences is important if the intoxicated person who is charged with an offence of basic intent has thought about a possible risk and wrongly concluded it to be negligible. In this case, there is a lacuna in the â€Å"recklessness test.† The defendant would be acquitted unless convicted under the Majewski ruling on the basis that the actus reus of an offence of basic intent has been committed. Lord Edmund-Davis dissented arguing ‘however grave the crime charged, if recklessness can constitute its mens rea the fact that it was committed in drink can afford no defence.’ Is this too harsh to adhere to the justice proclaimed in the English legal system? The case of R v Heard, the Court of Appeal rejected the recklessness test in favor of the â€Å"purposive intent† and â€Å"ulterior intent† test. The judgment contains vast amounts of ambiguity with the difficulty of ‘fitting an offence into a single pigeon hole.’ The â€Å"recklessness† test was finally confirmed in the 1980 Criminal Law Revision Committee Report and provided an ample explanation for voluntary intoxication. The offence of rape provides a good illustration of the difficulties involved in the â€Å"recklessness† test. The case of R v Fotheringham concerned the rape of a 14-year-old girl by an intoxicated husband who mistakenly underwent sexual intercourse in the belief that the girl was his wife. The offence of rape at that time could be committed recklessly but this has been altered to the principle of ‘reasonable belief.’ The court had to decide whether the defendant had an intention to carry out unlawful sexual intercourse or whether recklessness was sufficient for conviction. Public policy of protection triumphed over the strict subjective theory where intoxication would prevent liability and defined rape as a basic intent offence. The recent case of R v Rowbotham (William) concerning the offences of murder, arson with intent to endanger life and burglary were invalidated where defence expert evidence showed the defendant’s mental abnormalities combined with extreme intoxication had prevented him from forming the specific intent necessary. This case illustrates the dichotomy is still used by courts today despite aspirations for reform. Involuntary Intoxication The courts have taken a moderate approach to defendants who have become intoxicated through no fault of their own. The most common cases of involuntary intoxication involve intoxication that is unknowingly induced by a third party. The main principle is that a defendant will not be held liable for any crimes they carried out while involuntary intoxicated. Their transparency and lack of knowledge shields their ability to form the necessary mens rea. This is not a â€Å"blanket† rule and there are various requirements as to what satisfies the definition of ‘involuntary intoxication.’ Lord Mustill in R v Kingston described the phenomenon as a ‘temporary change in the mentality or personality of the respondent, which lowered his ability to resist temptation so far that his desires overrode his ability to control them.’ He declared the Court of appeal supported the view that protection flows from the ‘general principles’ of the criminal law, b ut what exactly does the term â€Å"general† entail? The first criterion is that the defendant cannot claim they are involuntarily intoxicated if they were misinformed about the description or specific alcohol content. This is illustrated in R v Allen where a man was convicted of indecently assaulting his neighbour even though he had no knowledge of the high alcohol content of the home made wine that he was drank at home having returned from the pub. The second criterion imposed by the courts is that the defendant must have been intoxicated to the point where it would be impossible to form the mens rea to commit the crime. The case of R v Beard created the rationale that there is no remedy if an individual’s inhibitions are lost due to involuntary intoxication. This case was more complex as it involved succession of acts; the defendant whilst intoxicated, raped a 13-year-old girl, placed his hand on her mouth to stop her from screaming, and thus suffocating her resulting in her death. The trial judge at first instance erred in a pplying the test of insanity to a case of intoxication, which did not amount to insanity. Has the ambiguity in this case been eradicated? A recent paradigm of involuntary intoxication can be seen in the Kingston case involving a situation where a 15-year-old boy was drugged and indecently assaulted after the defendant’s drink was spiked. The trial judge directed the jury to convict if they found that the defendant had assaulted the boy pursuant to an intent resulting from the influence of the intoxication. The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal on the basis that it was the defendant’s ‘operative fault.’ Smith has depicted this outcome as ‘surprising, dangerous and contrary to principle.’ The opinion of the House of Lords, who took a narrow view of blame, was Smith’s preferred alternative but others favor the creation of a new common law defence determined by character assessment. Sullivan has described this as comparing the defendant’s â€Å"settled† character with their â€Å"intoxicated† character. If the character is ‘destabilized, he should have an excuse.’ Should the blame not be directed at the 3rd party instead of the defendant though? This method creates a schism between the relevant blame and moral fault. As a consequence, mens rea is being given a more normative meaning negating its cognitive counterpart. However, the Commission is adamant to reject the creation of a new approach and wishes to give statutory effect to the decision in Kingston. They believe that ‘there should be no defence or reduced inhibitions or blurred perception of morality where the defendant’s condition was caused by involuntary intoxication.’ Only time will tell, if the legal reform bodies will cling to their orthodoxy or embrace change. Dutch courage and diseases of the mind To what extent is alcohol-related crime attributable to those with already dysfunctional lives, with a propensity to problematic behaviors, rather than apparently ‘normal’ people engaging in criminal acts when intoxicated? The union of actus reus and mens rea is known as contemporaneity. It is necessary to establish for a conviction to be successful. However, the Dutch courage rule, where the accused gets into a drunken state after deciding to commit a crime, is an exception to this principle. It was decided in Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher that the accused would be liable for the crime even though they were too drunk to satisfy the required mental element. Lord Denning declared ‘the wickedness of his mind before he got drunk is enough to condemn him.’ Although, it has been recognized that ‘it is almost inconceivable that the case envisaged could ever arise.’ The sale and consumption of alcohol are legal so should we accept t he consequences of diminished responsibility as a cause of criminal activities if perpetrated whilst under the influence? There has been more discussion surrounding the affiliation between alcohol and diseases of the mind. The case of R v Dietschmann concerned a defendant who was intoxicated at the time of the killing that suffered from a mental abnormality due to a recent bereavement. Lord Hutton said ‘drink cannot be taken into account as something which contributed to his mental abnormality.’ The main principle is that drunken defendants are not excluded from pleading diminished responsibility or insanity if they suffer from mental abnormalities. Ashworth believes the task of the jury to decide whether the mental abnormality affected the mens rea is ‘fearsomely difficult.’ Medical experts to some extent aid the task of the jury but the margin for error is significant as the effect of drink and drugs is unique to every individual. It has also been argued that there could potentially be a genetic predisposition to alcoholism but the scope of this is unknown. Tolmie’s conceptualizations of the ‘disease model’ and the ‘habit model’ are eccentric and provide light recovery from psychoanalytic evaluations. I particularly enjoy the fact that she has highlighted the importance of ‘normal human processes†¦and bad choices,’ which are often overlooked. She concentrates on the need for treatment for defendants and does not fall into the trap of defining intoxication as an express defence. The current position of the law in this area is unfair as it deforms other doctrines, supports unprincipled sentencing and punishes some defendants far more than they deserve. Adoption of a generic, doctrinal mitigating excuse of â€Å"partial responsibility† with application to all crimes would solve these problems. This alternative option would function in a similar manner to the ‘not proven’ verdict used in Scotland. In the end, to provide blame and punishment reduction based on fair respon sibility ascription will not support a denial of responsibility. Reform Certain statutes expressly state that a defendant has a defence if they possess particular beliefs. Does this apply where a belief is acquired through intoxication? There is only one type of case where an intoxicated belief can be used as a â€Å"defence.† In the case of Jaggard v Dickinson, the defendant appealed against a conviction of reckless criminal damage to property. The accused, owing to voluntary intoxication, mistakenly but honestly believed that she was damaging the property of a friend and that they would have consented to her doing so. A major anomaly in the law is found when the approach taken in Jaggard is contrasted with that taken in Majewski where the Criminal Justice Act 1967 was not relied upon. Wells has commented that ‘it is difficult to see how†¦the sections perform any different function.’ The area surrounding drunken mistakes is just one theme encircled with uncertainty. There has been much discussion of reform regarding the position of intoxication in the law. The concepts of basic and specific intent are ambiguous, confusing and misleading. The Law Commission has created a proposal to abandon them but the substance of the distinction has been retained. The main question regarding the specific and basic intent dichotomy is the affect it has on the voluntary intoxicated defendant’s liability. The blameworthiness of the defendant is expressed by an evaluation of criminal liability. An enlightened system of criminal justice should respond differently to ‘common criminals’ and voluntary intoxicated defendants. If a man commits mischief when intoxicated, should society take steps in the framework of the criminal law to prevent him? Judicial insistence upon the requirement of mens rea might remove the problem of antisocial drinking but alternatives will not develop if the courts allow these problems to be thrust upon them. The Majewski decision has been criticized as it allows conviction for causing harm where mens rea has not been formed. This is even the case where a defendant is convicted of a basic intent offence instead of a stricter specific intent offence. The House of Lords decision acknowledged the principle of allowing intoxication to be adduced to show that the mens rea for specific intent offences did not exist. They were persuaded by policy objectives to convict of basic intent offences despite the intoxication. This â€Å"midway course† is acceptable on policy grounds but it fails to accord with the basic principles of justice in the criminal law. Is this a clear and logical compromise? The idea to secure conviction for serious offences without satisfying the criteria of mens rea is conjured. This conflicts with the burden of proof, which is placed on the prosecution. This means the fictitious objective â€Å"recklessness† test allows conviction of offences, which require proof of subjective â€Å"recklessness.† The current rationale of the law is that the subjective reckless involved in becoming intoxicated is the moral equivalent of the subjective recklessness usually required for liability. A further criticism is that â€Å"recklessness† relates to the risk of becoming intoxicated and not to the risk of specific harm being caused. As a result, the liability for the harm caused whilst intoxicated goes against the principle of contemporaneity and is constructive, which is contrary to the trend of current law reform. The English law reform bodies have created proposals to replace Majewski with a separate offence of intoxication. This separate offence would remove the possibility of a complete acquittal, which is available in specific intent crimes. A disadvantage to the proposal would be the construction of a â€Å"status† offence with no mens rea involved. This contrasts with previous social policy illustrated in the case of Reniger v Fogossa where a drunken killer was hanged to death to protect human life. However, the Criminal Law Revision Committee rejected the idea of a new offence of intoxication and instead suggested the codification of the law, whilst approving the â€Å"reckless test.† Authors such as Jeremy Horder, who depicted the Law Commission’s efforts as making ‘little effort to discern any deeper principles underlying the common law’, have criticized the Law Commission attempts at clarifying the law. The reform bodies now intend to amend their previous proposals and return ‘to the subject with a stripped down approach.’ Conclusion Why is it taking an unbounded amount of time to evaluate reform of the law on intoxication when 61% of the population perceives alcohol-related violence as worsening? The bare components of the law on intoxication are complex but the added series of exceptions that the Law Commission have proposed to introduce, in my opinion, will undermine the principle of justice in England and Wales. The common law has found a reasonable balance between the subjective and absolutist theories but the ‘midway course’ of specific and basic intent is not satisfactory. The dichotomy requires the courts to evaluate individual criminal acts on their merits putting them into a category of specific or basic intent, which squanders the court’s time and thus, decreases the overall inefficiency of the legal system. Child’s innovative approach involving the correlation with subjective recklessness is an alternative to the recent reform proposals. He declares intoxication will constitute fault only where the burden is replaced by subjective reasonableness and if the defendant would have foreseen the risk if sober. The ‘midway course’ is preserved but in a clear and logical manner without a list of exceptions. However, I disagree with Child’s interpretation of intoxication as the equivalent to recklessness. I believe more research needs to be given to determine the extent of their connection and ultimately decide whether they are analogous or mutually exclusive. Ultimately, liability is ascertained by the intention element but how can this truly be deduced when automatons are intoxicated? Lady Justice Hallett in the recent case of R v Janusz Czajczynsk commented that ‘drinking to excess and taking drugs seems to us to be something of a two edged sword.’ It is tempting to view the defence of intoxication as denying a defendant ‘a valueless opportunity to exculpate himself by pleading his own discreditable conduct in getting drunk.’ However, it is impossible to accurately determine an individual’s thoughts at a precise moment and draw a line where a defendant’s account matches the truth. Simester suggests the intoxication doctrine is reversed to benefit prosecution, becoming constructive liability instead of a defence. I believe there is some accuracy in this initiative but it fails to address the main problem regarding the mental state of the accused. Should there be a common law or statutory defence of intoxication expressly declared? The courts and the Law Commission know the law is not clear and desire to reform the law only after exploring every open avenue. The Law Commission has rightly prioritized consistency, precision and simplicity in their Reports but ‘another round of re-evaluation’ is definitely needed before a firm conclusion can be established. We can only hope that time does run out, allowing the reform debate to finish sooner rather than later.

Jordan Baker

Not all houses can be the centre of attending where everyone wants to party at that place on Saterday darks. The houses that can make this are ever filled up people and are ever throwing partys that keep the bangs traveling non halt. The house described exists in a topographic point known merely as West Egg. The one throwing all these astonishing partys is Jay Gatsby, besides known as the great gatsby.How he got his luck is unknown but everyone excepts the fact that he is really rich.the house described above is found in the exciting authoritative novel, The Great Gatsby. Nick Carraway is the 1 that tells this narrative. He tells the narrative in a really unagitated and understanding manner. Nick lives across the manner from Gatsby and is related to Daisy. Theres many different important parts to the narrative. One that many people dont relize are the minor characters, there of import because they make the major character seem more realistic. The minor characters can state parts of t he narrative that the major characters could ne'er make. They complete the book and do all the events that take topographic point seem more realistic. The minor characters of this narrative show sides of the major characters that you would ne'er see with out at that place aid. Fitzgerald, the writer of The Great Gatsby, made many of import minor characters that bring the narrative to life such as Jordan Baker, Myrtle, and George Wilson. these minor character further finish the secret plan. Jordan Baker was normally seen throughout the book. She is Daisy ‘s friend and she represents the new adult females of the 1920s. Nick said â€Å" She was incurably dishonest. She was n't able to digest being at a disadvantage † ( Fitzgerald 60 ) . Nick and Jordan so ended up in a relationship. Fitzgerald included Jordan Baker because she makes Nick more of a character instead than a storyteller. Since she is friends with Daisy, she has information that Nick could non acquire which helps the narrative be told. She told Nick the narrative behind Gatsby and how his wealth came to be. She besides told Nick about Daisy ‘s matrimony, and how Daisy decided she did n't desire to get married Tom on the nuptials dark, but she did anyhow. Jordan said â€Å"Gatsby bought that house so that Daisy would be merely across the bay† ( Fitzgerald 80 ) . She connected Nick and Gatsby and besides connected all of the chief characters. The relationship between Nick and Jordan wa s non as strong. It was there to be contrasted with the relationship of Gatsby and Daisy. Jordan was an of import minor character because she connected the chief characters together. Myrtle Wilson foremost appeared in the narrative when Tom introduced here to Nick. Myrtle is merryed to George but is rip offing on him with Tom who is besides married. Myrtle is reasonably much a homewrecker and she is merely being used by Tom as more female company. During the party that happens in chapter 2 Myrtal repetitions Toms married woman name one time to many times and in a tantrum of fury Tom punches her in the face. This shows Toms disrespect for adult females and that he wanted nil to make with Myrtal than to utilize her. Myrtle making what she did shows that Tom is non merely a nice loving cat. Tom is shown as a 2 timer when he inquiries Daisy and Gatsby ‘s relationship even though he himself was holding an matter. Myrtle believes she is in a higher category or people than her hubby George Wilson. You can see this when she recieves a complament on something she was have oning and answer â€Å" It ‘s merely a brainsick old thing, I merely steal it on sometim es when I do n't care what I look like † . ( Fitzgerald 37 ) . She trys to conceal the white rubbish she truely is by moving snobby all because she is with Tom. In her head money is all person needs to hold felicity in life. Myrtle shows the reader that no 1 should move like something they ‘re non. George Wilson is besides another minor character in the novel. He is a mechanic and is Myrtle Wilson ‘s hubby. Tom Buchanan dainties George in a atrocious mode. He still talks to George easy, even though he is holding an matter with his married woman. When Tom went to present Nick to Myrtle, George asks Tom when is he selling him his auto. Tom replied following hebdomad, but so says â€Å" And if you feel that manner about it, possibly I ‘d better sell it someplace else after all † ( Fitzgerald 25 ) . The manner Tom negotiations to George, feels as if Tom acts superior. But George proved that incorrect because he is a sincere adult male. He really, genuinely loved Myrtle, unlike Tom. Tom practically plays both Daisy and Myrtle. When Myrtle was killed, Tom decided to state George that Gatsby killed her. He despised the relationship that Gatsby and Daisy had. He told George that, because he knew George would revenge Myrtle and so Gatsby would be out of his manner. Ge orge killed Gatsby all because of words from Tom. Tom is a barbarous adult male that merely uses George as a tool. The Great Gatsby is a great American, authoritative novel. It tells a great narrative of love and complications. It ‘s a review of the American dream. But all of it could n't hold been accomplished without the usage of minor characters. In The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald included minor characters functions such as Myrtle Wilson, Jordan Baker and George Wilson to sophisticate the narrative, with important actions. For illustration, Myrtle Wilson reflected the harsh and hypocrite side of Tom Buchanan. He uses her and does n't desire to go forth Daisy for her. Jordan Baker linked the chief characters together. She gave information to the storyteller that he would n't hold been able to have realistically. Her relationship with Nick made him more of a existent individual, and less of a storyteller. George Wilson ‘s character shows how Tom merely uses people for his benefits. The minor characters played of import functions in the novel. They reveal or unlock secrets about major ch aracters. The writer sends messages through minor characters that he could non through major characters. They make the major characters dynamic, and their actions causes the secret plan to alter. The narrative would n't be so great in-depth without minor characters.