 Legal Methods and Legal System

 Assignment-1
Facts:- Popeye lives with his wife, Olive, and two children on an
island in the state of Bluto. On 20 August 2017, a powerful hurricane
swept across the state, badly damaging the roads, bridges and houses.
The hurricane brought winds as strong as 125 mph. Entire communities
remained isolated for a number of days leaving unknown number of
people including, Popeye, without electricity, food or water. Popeye’s
coastal community was completely cut off with no access to cell phone
or land-line service or nearby cities. Popeye and his family were forced
to leave their property to find safety elsewhere.
A number of people died. One victim drowned while attempting to
cross a swollen stream. The second died of a heart attack aboard his
boat, which was docked in Spinach city. Fire-fighters and humanitarian
organisations struggled to provide relief while also worrying about
feeding and hydrating themselves. The situation for the survivors
became particularly intense at night. People started to form into defence
militias in order keep out looters.
After a number of days with no food or water, Popeye found
himself in a desperate situation. He was hungry and exposed to the
elements. He suffered from fright, fear, hunger and disorientation. His
family was in a similar state. It was 8 pm on a particularly hot night.
Popeye walked aimlessly through the chaos and ultimately broke into a
pharmacy and took food, water and ice for himself and his family to
survive for several days. He continued to scavenge for items to relieve
his family’s suffering.
A number of days later when help from the government finally
arrived, the owner of the pharmacy discovered how his goods went
missing and reported the incident to the police. The pharmacy owner
now finds that he has to pay a higher insurance premium, and decides to
raise the price of his goods. Popeye is charged with the criminal offence
of looting.
Law:-
Under the Penal Code of Bluto looting is defined as:-
“[t]he intentional entry by a person without authorisation into
any dwelling or another structure belonging to another and
used in whole or in part as a place of home or abode by a
person, or any structure belonging to another and used in
whole or in part as a place of business, in which normal
security of property is not present by virtue of a hurricane,
flood, fire or act of God or force majeure of any kind and the
obtaining or exerting control over or damaging or removing
property of the owner.”

Punishment:- Looting carries a maximum sentence of 15 years

imprisonment.

Popeye is convicted at trial. He is now appealing his case to the Supreme Court.3
bench judge will decide the trail. the Judges are Justice Truepenny ,Justice Goad
,Justice frank.

Trail at Supreme Court of Bluto.

Justice Truepenny:- Morally he believes in literal
interpretation of the statute or law, So he would ascribe this as
extraordinary case and say that the jury and the trial judge
should followed a course that is not only fair and wise, but
the only course that is open to them under the law. The
language of our statute is well known:- “[t]he intentional entry
by a person without authorisation into any dwelling or another
structure belonging to another and used in whole or in part as
a place of home or abode by a person, or any structure
belonging to another and used in whole or in part as a place of
business, in which normal security of property is not present
by virtue of a hurricane, flood, fire or act of God or force
majeure of any kind and the obtaining or exerting control over
or damaging or removing property of the owner.” So it is clear
that the Popeye has looted the pharmacy. And if we follow the
rule of ‘Natural Law’ the pharmacy owner had right to protect
his property and by looting pharmacy Popeye infringe his right.
We can’t acquire necessity as defence because that was not the
last option which he had. There were many other alternatives. In
a case like this the principle of executive clemency seems
admirably suited but we must follow the law and according
law which states that Popeye is guilty and so he should we
punished.
So Popeye is Guilty for committing looting.

Justice Goad:- There are several reasons why the defendant is

not guilty of looting. One is that the Popeye doesn’t have any
responsibility for the excruciating dilemma in which they
found himself.it was his necessity which forced him to do acts
which is forbidden by law. Another is that Popeye had a right to
defend himself, which is compatible with the defense theory of
necessity.
Truepenny would argue that looting is crime if we adhere
to law and necessity doesn’t matter. But Popeye did this act
because he had absolute necessity. If a man “must” rape a
woman in order to be admitted into a gang, we do not let this
“necessity” acquit him of the rape. But what if his refusal to
commit the rape would cause the gang to kill him, and he
knows this? He cannot acquire necessity because he himself
chose to wakeup at the point where he has to perform rape
in order to escape his death. Why do we acquit defendants who
were involuntarily intoxicated at the time of their criminal acts,
but not those who were voluntarily intoxicated? Our theory of
criminal intent or ‘mens rea’ seems to require that we acquit
them both; they lack the requisite state of mind in exactly the
same way and may as well lack it to exactly the same degree.
The short answer is that we are much less sympathetic to those
who cause harm while voluntarily drunk than to those who
cause harm while involuntarily drunk. The reason is clearly
that voluntary drunks bear some responsibility both for their
intoxicated state and for any harm they cause while in that state.
We can say that we are unsympathetic to voluntary drunks
because they bear this responsibility for their own loss of
mental capacity.
So,according to me the Popeye is not guilty for looting
because ‘mens rea’ is not here in this case.

Justice Frank:- Moral implications of Frank states the

situational reactions. He is empathetic and puts himself in
the shoes of the accused or the victim.So here the law
states:- “[t]he intentional entry by a person without
authorisation into any dwelling or another structure belonging
to another and used in whole or in part as a place of home or
abode by a person, or any structure belonging to another and
used in whole or in part as a place of business, in which
normal security of property is not present by virtue of a
hurricane, flood, fire or act of God or force majeure of any
kind and the obtaining or exerting control over or damaging
or removing property of the owner.” I am not sure that I can
distinguish what I would have done from what I hope I would
have done. I hope I would have waited until the very last
moment before accepting the necessity to looting. But then I
hope I would have urged that I should a loot for my life. I hope
I would have had the courage to exert my share of energy, and
implicate myself fully, in the act of looting. Finally, I hope I
would still have had an appetite to save my life. Perhaps I
would have withered from weakness; I will not pretend to be
sure.But if I cannot condemn men for doing what I would
have done, then a fortiori I cannot condemn them for doing
what I hope I would have done. So, Popeye is not guilty for
looting because it was necessity which forced him to break law.