Scenario 1: 1. Richard is the one responsible for the sole act of criminal behaviour in this situation, by smashing the bottle over Michael's head, causing a serious wound. The criminal act performed by Richard would be battery. 2. Offences of this kind are penalised for a number of reasons. One reason is to prevent rampant acts of battery societally, by punishing perpetrators with serious terms of imprisonment and fines. 3. Offences are delegated to criminal offenders in court, as a means of ensuring that there is a methodical, fair, and well-documented means of administering justice in society. 4. Specifically, the act of harming someone with an instrument such as a bottle could be classified as battery with a deadly weapon. Thus, his punishment would reflect his action of causing harm to another and for his use of a bottle in doing so. 5. A judge might be persuaded by Richard's level of intoxication that perhaps the degree of his punishment could be reduced slightly, but this is not guaranteed. Scenario 2: 1. Mirko's possession of ecstasy tablets was the act criminal behaviour in this scenario, given that it is a restricted substance. 2. Offences of this kind are penalised in order to limit the consumption of dangerous substances in general across society. 3. Court. This is done as a means of ensuring that there is a methodical, fair, and well-documented means of administering justice in society. Scenario 3: 1. This is a far more serious offence. Mirko has imported a large number of ecstasy tablets across international borders, which is an extremely serious offence. She has also dealt them to her friends, which is an additional offence, the sale and distribution of a restricted substance. 2. To limit the proliferation of cartels and other large, dangerous criminal organisations which use the proceeds of drug sales in order to fund their criminal ventures. 3. This matter would likely be heard in the Supreme court, given the quantity of drugs which were found in Mirko's possession. Scenario 4: 1. Mrs. Cogden struck her 19 year old daughter twice in the face with a woodcutting axe. 2. She believed, in her delirious, dreaming state, that there were soldiers in her daughter's room attacking her, and she believed that she was defending her. 3. No, she did not consciously or subconsciously hold any desire to kill her daughter. 4. She was acquitted for the crime, which I believe she should have been, but any existing medical practises at the time which may have been able to prevent future somnambulistic episodes should have been prescribed to
her, potentially in a psychiatric care setting. I don't think she should be detained indefinitely in psychiatric care either. 5. Yes, if she knowingly took LSD after the prior night's episode, I would consider her behaviour to be incredibly irresponsible. Thus, even if her delusions on LSD were identical and had the exact same outcome, I would ascribe a far greater degree of guilt to her actions. However,