blog
media download page
Essay / Legal Procedures and Requirements for Hostile Intent in the Republic of Namibia come from Roman law which in Roman -Dutch law was known as “hoogverraad”. High treason has been identified as a crime committed by individuals with hostile intent, to cause harm or threaten the freedom of the country or the security of the Republic of Namibia. In fact, high treason is something prepared or attempted with hostile intent to harm the state or government of the country. This assignment will also address the procedures to be followed when the State determines whether the accused had hostile intent and the conditions for hostile intent. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay High treason is the unlawful and intentional commission of any act with the “additional intent” of subverting or coercing the State. Well defined as intentionally betraying one's allegiance by demanding war against the government or providing aid or consolation to one's enemies. This is the most serious crime that can be committed against the government and is punishable by imprisonment. High treason is criminal infidelity to one's government. Taking part in a fight against your country, attempting to overthrow your government, spying on your military, ambassadors or secret services on behalf of a hostile and foreign power, or even attempting to assassinate your head of state are all possible. -be the best-known illustrations. of high treason. High treason requires that the accused traitor have pledges of loyalty within the state he betrayed, but this will most often be fulfilled by being posted in the state at the time of the offense, or by being a citizen of the state in the event of treason. abroad.Blame blame is a legal term that alludes to lawful culpability and responsibility in all aspects of the law. It refers to both the actus reus and the psychological state of the suspect. The basic principle is that a wrongdoer must have the capacity to think about the harm his or her activities may cause and should therefore expect to stay away from such activities. Different forms of liability employ different notions of fault; in some it is not necessary to prove fault, but its absence. In criminal law, mens rea is used to determine whether the defendant has a criminal purpose when making the showing and, provided this is true, he is thereby obligated for the wrongdoing. However, this is not necessary for strict liability offenses, for which no specific state of mind is required to satisfy the burden of proof. Intent in General Intent is well known in criminal law as malicious intent. the act and taking into account the circumstances set out in the definition elements as well as illegality. There are two elements of intention, a cognitive element and a conative element. The cognitive test is a test in criminal law. It tests the suspect's ability to know certain things, including the nature of his behavior and the ability to choose whether his behavior was right. Intent in criminal law is somewhat subjective, when a person's mind is incapable of direct testimony through witnesses. This can only be proven by inference after the acts as well as by the expressions of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. The very important general principle of criminal law is that a persongenerally cannot be convicted of a crime without desiring or intending to break the law. With limited exemptions, the person does not need to know that the act itself is a crime, acting as if they did not know the law is not a pardon for criminal conduct. In this way, if an individual accepts that what he has done is lawful and deliberately carries out this act, the lawful condition of criminal intent is met. Mens rea comes from the Latin for reprehensible mind and speaks to what the mind of the accused was like when the actus reus was committed. The intentional concept could be a subjective concept, i.e. what the actual accused was thinking at the time of the offense, as opposed to an objective concept, i.e. what a reasonable person would have thought in the same situation. Intent is the highest form of mens rea and an example of this is the case of theft. The criminal intent of theft is the intention to permanently deprive someone of their property. Without the intent to take the property, the defendant is not guilty of the crime. The intention can be oblique or direct. Direct intent is wherever the defendant actually desires the consequences of his actions. Oblique intention gives the concept of intention a broader meaning; the consequence was not the defendant's goal but was "virtually certain" to occur as the end result of his actions. The Difference Between Hostile Intent and Intent Hostile intent has been defined in many writings as an authoritative element of treason. The motive is not sufficient to be responsible for the commission of high treason. Hostile intent can be an opinion based on a person's feeling, as well as not an objective element that can prove the crime of treason. Although the objective of overthrowing the government of the Republic arguably does not constitute hostile intent, hostile intent is not limited to this state of mind. Someone who plans to coerce the government of Namibia by force, but has no intention of overthrowing it, has hostile intentions. Intent is something subjective, someone's state of mind that cannot be directly proven by witnesses. This can be proven by the interpretation of the accused's performances and expressions as well as the surrounding circumstances. The requirement in the definition of high treason that the acts charged must have been committed with hostile intent against the State does not mean that the accused must have been motivated by feelings of hatred or ill will with regard to the State, but only that he was intentionally opposed to it. Treason may be committed and hostile intent may be opinionatedly entertained to achieve an additional objective. The crucial objective may be the achievement of some solid or financial benefits intended for part or even the whole of the public. It may be the achievement of a member of an opposition party or of a political or ideological theory, or the satisfaction of an individual ambition or the exacerbation of individual hatred. . None of these extreme motives are important in determining whether treason has been committed or not. There remain all the factors that encourage a citizen to have the intention to help the adversary, or to weaken the power unlike the enemy, in the case where he acts to achieve this intention, he commits an act of treason . may require proof of hostile intentThe reprehensible act of treason describes as any criminal conduct committed by an individual owing allegiance to a State with the intent of: overthrowing the government of the Republic; coerce the government by violence into any action or inaction; rape, threaten or endangerthe existence, independence or security of the Republic; modify the constitutional structure of the Republic. For each speech as well as each motivation recorded, you must examine the situation on your own and alongside any other authorized material to decide if there is evidence. of hostile intent towards the State. The indictment must show that the accused knows that what he is going to do is illegal to commit the communist doctrine of violent revolution or that he proliferated this guideline by means of it. The prosecution must prove, by referring to countless files and dialogues, that the accused have a strategy of violence. The court must prove by all means that the accused obtained or accepted a plan to overthrow the state through violence, within the intelligence services and that the masses must be organized for direct acts of violence directed against the State. The indictment is appropriate to prove treason. prove beyond a reasonable doubt the violent plan of the crime committed as well as the adherence of each accused to it. An individual who acts against the Namibian government and believes that a new government or a different form of government might be in the interests of the Republic of Namibia is not exempt by his or her motives. For example, their acts of propaganda and demonstration aimed at coercing the government into a confident direction could, in particular circumstances, result in high treason. Subsequently, it must be proven that the objective of the accused was to organize crowds of people for campaigns, to pursue institutions and strikes against the State which, through a process thereof, would mark its charges as being enshrined in the Constitution of Independence. the possible defenses that can be invoked. 1977. Section 78 stated that anyone who compels an action that creates a crime and the individual at the time of that commission have a problem of insanity or mental deficiency that renders him incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his performance; or to act in accordance with the assessment of the unlawful nature of his act, will not be criminally responsible for this act. The article makes clear that the word act that creates a wrongdoing does not connote an offense for which the suspect is responsible, but simply an act that meets the definitional elements of the applicable crime. Immature Age The first part of criminal liability, that is, whether the accused must have suffered from mental illness, will be considered first. It is clearly stated in section 78 paragraph of the Namibian Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, in addition to section 79, the accused must have suffered from insanity and must have a strong mind with the aid of psychiatric indications. It is not essential to demonstrate that an infection or mental weakness originated in the mind of the accused, but the defense can be effective even if the cause is organic, as in the case of arteriosclerosis. It can be eternal or ephemeral in nature. For the accused to be able to invoke this defense, he must of course be immature at the time of the act. The privilege of each individual to comment on tons of open meanings and to listen to anyone who needs to listen the right to speak freely as stated in Chapter 3 of the Structure of Namibia, should not be unduly diminished by the fear of being indicted for treason if the views communicated are hostile to the ears of those in power to be sure in case such reactions do not respect the principles of good taste, reasonableness and honesty that one would accept as a wise writer or open speaker. The right to speak freely is just as profitable as being able to be stifled by such.
Navigation
« Prev
1
2
3
4
5
Next »
Get In Touch