The Criminal Justice System has different types of sentencing structures for people who willingly or accidently have taken part in death of another person. There are some instances that need to be reflected in the Judicial System. These circumstances may have helped with death, but may not be the actual reason that death occurred. The two test that are going to be addressed are in regards to these types of cases.
The Smithers Test of Causation had come about during a court hearing for a person on a murder charge. The case occurred in 1973 between Smithers v. R. “Smithers had issues with the other man, Cobby who had been taunting and yelling racial names towards him” . Smithers had enough of the racial remarks and kicked Cobby in the stomach. Cobby had fell to the ground, and died shortly after. The medical examination proved that the kick did not kill him, but had died from a rare health issue concerning his esophagus. The esophagus had closed off and did not let any oxygen pass to the body.
This meant Smithers was responsible for the death of Cobby even though the kick from is foot had not actually caused the death. It was the rare health issue that had caused Cobby’s death. The court had to make an important decision as to how much Smithers assist in the death, and if that would be enough to prove guilt. The courts had decided that if Smithers had assisted in Cobby’s death then the charge would be culpable homicide.
If the courts testing proved that Smithers had assisted in Cobby’s death; then Smithers would be charged with murder. The charges depends on what degree Smithers had impacted Cobby’s death. Smithers could receive a murder charge depending on the findings of the test. This made Smithers liable in Cobby’s death, because he caused the incident that made the health issue occur. The charges will be brought against Smithers for the death of Cobby, even though he actually did not kill him.
The substantial testing was determined after the Smither’s test was completed and the charged were proven. “Substantial testing was conducted in the court case of 2001 R. v. Nette” . Canada Supreme Court had used and maintained the Smithers causation test to determine if a manslaughter charge could be proven in the cause of death. The substantial cause was directed from a cause of substantial proven cause. The test then analyzed that the substantial cause of death occurred.
In 1983 the court case of R v. Farratt had the Smithers Test used and diagnosed as to whether the death was caused by action that reacted death. The Criminal Code had to prove this, and substantial causation test was to be used. The findings considered that second degree charges were not in the medium of the scale, and therefore the charges of first degree would be beneficial. The two test are working together to help find if a person is in fault of another person’s death. Rather the death was caused by an incident that inflicted something to cause death. The tests was reliable, and had been helpful in criminal trials where death was involved.
The 1994 court case R. v. Carribbin had successfully used and utilized the Smithers Causation Test. The findings of the test had positive results and the substantial causation test was also used. The tests held up and gave a conviction of murder in the second degree, and that the court would proceed with the findings.
The same results were in another case that had used the Smithers Causation Test. In 1999 the case of R v. Meiler the courts had successful results with the test, and was able to come to a conclusion of guilty. The charge was handed down to second degree murder. The tests proved that there was enough cause to assist death. Therefore the charges of murder is set in place. The tests have been helpful in deciding whether there was enough cause in the death of the person.
If there is not enough or minimal levels then there would not be a charge of murder due to cause.
The Rudeck v. Wright had used the substantial causation test. This was the first case in the state of Montana that had used the substantial causation test to prove guilt of a doctor who had committed a legality and caused death. “Another court case that had used the assistance of substantial cause test was Kyriss v. State” . The case was based upon a Doctor who was treating an inmate in prison. The prisoner needed a piece of toenail taken out. His foot got worse and did not heal like it should. The offender contacted other medical staff about his medical issue. Finally he had to get an amputation because the Doctors neglected to find the cause of his problem. The substantial causation test was used in finding that charges of medical malpractice were given.
I am agree with the Smithers Causation Test and the Substantial Causation Test. The tests assist in determining if there is enough cause to prove murder even if the person did not initially have a direct cause of death. The death would have occurred during an altercation and not knowing a person has a health issue that would cause death. The person fighting may not have done this if he would have known the other person had a health issue that was deadly.
The same instances is in regards to drunk drivers. The driver who drove drunk may have hit and caused death of another human being. The driver may not have physically committed death upon the person but his car which was his possession had done so because of the actions of the driver. There are many reasons that the both tests can help in homicide cases. To determine if there is enough cause for guilt beyond a reasonable doubt then that person will be charged with murder.
One argument against the tests is that people who are charged with murder may have honestly not meant for that to happen at the time the action had occurred. There are some people who are convicted that would not have ever harmed another person to cause death.
Reference
Lester, R. (2009). Juedemean v. Montana Medical Cener. The Substantial Causation Test, 1-11.
McMillon, Q. (2001). R v. Nette. Supreme Court Judgement, 1-19.
Ziana, S. (2016). Smithers v. R. Supreme Court of Canada, 1-11.
