Q. 1
Constructive possession implies that illegal drugs have been found to be in place over which one has control and knowledge, such as drugs being found a warehouse store owned by a trader. Actual possession, on the other hand, refers to a situation whereby illegal substances have been found in the person, hand, or container that an individual owns or control. An example is where drugs are found in one’s pockets. Knowing possession is where one possesses an illegal drug with knowledge that it is a prohibited substance. Mere possession is physical possession such as possession of illegal drugs. The similarity between them is that all these types of possession require intent and knowledge.
Q. 2
The major similarity between the Good Samaritan doctrine and the American bystander rule is that both are legal clauses aimed at differentiating the criminal or civil liability for inaction. The difference is that while the Good Samaritan rule imposes a mandatory obligation on individuals to summon, order, or render aid for those strangers in danger or peril situations, the American bystander rule does not impose any duty or even liability on the individual to render or summon aid and rescue to strangers in danger. For example, under the doctrine, one cannot choose to pass a perilous situation such as an accident without calling for assistance or rescue without being held liable while under the rule, there is no liability for inaction. The best rule is the American bystander rule because it is a moral rather than a legal obligation for one to summon or render aid to strangers.
Q. 3
According to Samaha, only voluntary acts qualify as criminal acts because people are and should be punished “for what they do, not for who they are, or what they intend” (p. 98). This also helps in proving intent by inferring an accused’s state of mind from their actions. There are four rationales for this including the fact that criminal law punishes individuals, only people who can be blamed can be punished, only those responsible for their acts can be blamed, and individuals can only be held responsible for voluntary acts (Samaha, p. 99).
Q. 4
Legally, a voluntary act is defined as actions that have been performed or committed with the full will, consciousness, and knowledge of the perpetrator. Fault-based defenses are those that involve involuntary acts. Examples include epileptic seizures and sleepwalking. On the other hand, affirmative defenses are those involving voluntary acts such as diminished capacity and insanity. These defenses relate to the legal definition of a voluntary act by restricting criminal liability only to those acts upon which an accused has to control.
Q. 5
Status refers to an individual or something’s condition or character. Status arising voluntary acts is the condition resulting from voluntary acts such as intoxication while status arising from characteristics is that which results from no act at all including ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, age, and sex.
Work Cited
Samaha, Joel. Criminal Law. Cengage Learning, 2016.
