Kadish and Voodoo Case

Anthony K.

The Model Penal code1, section 5.01 gives the following definition of attempted crimes:

“(1) Definition of Attempt. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he: (a) purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or (b) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part; or (c) purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.”


Under this definition, can Victor be convicted of attempted murder?
How would Kadish analyze this case?
What is Kadish’s criticism of the “harm doctrine” and how does it apply to this case?
According to Kadish, why do we still have the “harm doctrine”?


1. Under this definition, can Victor be convicted of attempted murder?

Danny C. Original Response,


Yes, all three premises of M.P.C.'s definition of "Attempted Rape". The first requires that one commit an act that harms another if the conditions were as if one imagined it. In other words, Victor believes that his wife is under the power of voodoo, and commences his activity. A second requirement is that one makes no (action/or inaction) to prevent the crime. Victor, once he has had enough, continues without hesitation to the completion of the act. The third premise requires a substantial step in the direction of the crime. Victor, in this case, completes the entire crime.


In response to Danny C.,


Everyday Americans go daily with attempted “murder,” thoughts floating around in their brains, with no serious attempts of actually committing the crime when it comes down to the fact. No, Victor cannot be charged with attempted crime, because the crime could be viewed from the theological" approach. The Voodooist can be viewed as conducting a religious activity that alone circumvents; because of the United States Constitution, I wanted to point this out as a response to the questions…but also from a rebuttal approach.


2. How would Kadish analyze this case?


Kadish is trying to base cases upon information vs. taking things by literati on. Also between the cases actual death in comparison to stabbing an inanimate doll, they are two different things. Implicating a man, off whimsical evidence is the primary concern.

3. What is Kadish’s criticism of the “harm doctrine” and how does it apply to this case?

Kadish argues that the "harm doctrine" is theoretically incoherent and ineffective in its goal of crime prevention. Therefore, to judge him based on the results of the outcome, whether attempted murder or murder, is nonsensical. Misdemeanors & ticketed offenses are based somewhat on a
whimsical viewpoint (nonsensical). In "layman terms," if one becomes aware of the punishment associated with a crime he/she is less likely to commit the act due to an unwanted outcome. Kadish makes this claim simply to prove the ineffectiveness of judicial system under the "harm principle" while linked with premeditation. 4. According to Kadish, why do we still have the “harm doctrine”?
Society has an ever-changing attitude with a hopefully even slower change on morals and values when compared with philosophy. The American people though mislead are perhaps the reason for mainstream awareness. Kadish will further assert that the law is merely a reflection of the society's ability to justify. Mainstream society, culture, religion, and popular vote shape persecution and ratification.

Native American

manslaughter Even though religion changed the faced, and for arguments sake, let us feels a sense of remorse. However, killing an individual is nothing short of ending a person’s life abruptly. Playing God with the fates and choosing when an individual lives’ and dies is not a game. The Native American in question decided to take a life, he believed it to be a “Wendi go,” that does not give the right to commit the act of murder. The Native American in question did commit the act of murder! However, he has leeway, because he could have taken the life on one’s property giving justification to “self-defense.” More circumstantial evidence should be brought up on behalf of the defendant. The prosecution has a clear-cut way to move forward with establishing a case based upon negligence. Even though the defense is going to have a case clearly based upon the theological aspects, one must argue the fact; that were there any type of opiates taken prior to the killing of the individual. Opium related drugs are sometimes used in Native American rituals and it could have changed this individual's means of perspective. These are factors one takes into consideration when prosecuting an individual on a "capital," offense.

"Peterman/ Defense"

Steven Peterson is innocence of the charges associated with his crime under "mens rea" and "actus reus" because the act in which Peterson was conducting , he was aware that his conduct was criminal, ethically, and morally wrong but did not act upon the crime. By linking the items that were on Mr. Peterson's person, i.e.  substances that Peterson had in his bag, the load of pornography and sex toys one can assume that Peterson had every intent when he arrived at set residence to commit the act. His charges (attempted rape) were set to be against a minor of the age of ten years and being a 45-year-old does not compliment the fact. He did not commit the act in itself .   Also it seems Peterson had done something like this in the past, this could lead to a prosecution based on solely on intent and history.  Rape vs.  Premeditated Rape are the distinguishing factors that deviate the line in coming to rectification and sentencing.  Since the act of rape was not acted out the only other outcome to extend in Mr. Peterson's behalf is that the thought of rape is still present.  But what is the crime in  which Mr. Peterson is facing and that would lead into the plea of innocence for the rape.  What is the prosecution charging for, and was a penal code actually broken?

"Lifeboat"

"Overcrowded Lifeboat"

1) The defendants are clearly guilty of murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with a purpose or intent to kill. Process of natural selection forced the captain to peak the stronger individuals to row. They made an executive decision's and choose people to die and to survive, the captain committed acts against survival, and this decision cause the death of those under his watch.

2) The actions of the crew members decision to abandon the rest of the the passengers in order to save there live was unjust.  The crew members made a decision instead of thinking of the whole they thought only of themselves. As the crew members it is their responsibility to protect the passengers and put their lives at risk to protect them, also they are supposed to regulation have enough life rafts vs how many aboard ship.  This goes to show that they were not prepared safety wise for the amount of passenger coming aboard the vessel.

3) John Stuart mill and Jeremy Bentham would have argued that the crew members and the first mate acted for the greater good of the crew.   In my opinion he was acting in means of survival, trying to keep alive those who could help to benefit survival till means of rescue. A  philosopher such as Kant , "would have opposed the utilitarian philosopher!"  Stating that, "it does not matter about the consequences but it's rather the fact on what is the right thing to do." Kant disagrees with the basic premises of all theories and believes more on what is morally right.  In a situation like that many variable are considered in order to state the necessary course of action to benefit the whole.