Flintwinch's Argumentative Essay

In my opinion I think that Flintwich should be charged with first degree murder and Sparkler should be charged with Manslaughter. The following problem solving strategy will support the argument by demonstrating both actus and mens rea for the acts committed by Flintwinch and Sparkler. Let one begin with brief synopsis of the event. Flintwinch a corner store owner, facing bankruptcy aims to apply for fraudulent claim against his insurance company. He then planned an arson in which his corner store would burn down and he could collect money from his unprofitable business. Since, he himself didn’t want to be culpable for the crime that he orchestrated he then enlisted Sparkler to commit the act itself. However, Flintwinch acted recklessly by …show more content…
We know that he didn’t come up with plan but rather was given the tools and instruction to commit the crime. However, how much responsibility of the outcome of the crime (death) can Sparkler take on? Since he didn’t premeditate the crime, is he still held responsible? I say, absolutely, Sparkler was absolutely aware that there is risk or an outcome of death from setting fire to the cornerstone. Regardless, of whether or not he was given the instruction, he still in the right mental health evaluated that there could be a possibility of irreversible harm, and he still continued with the crime. In our text, we learned that a principal criminal is someone who actually executes the crime. In this situation, Sparkler was the one who pulled the figurative trigger and committed the act of arson that lead to the death of five seniors. For definition sake, we can said that Sparker aided Flintwich in commited the crime. He may not have encouraged Flintwich (abetted) however that doesn’t mean that he still isn’t held responsible. If that day Sparkler didn’t go into the cornerstone with the jerry can, five people would be alive today. Therefor I suggest we define Manslaughter in term of Sparkler’s actions. Did a homicide occur with the actions that Sparkler took? Was he criminal negligent, ie when the death occurred did it results for an act or failure to act and show recless regard for lives? The answer to both previous questions is yes, Sparkler’s actions caused death and he was criminal negligent because he disregarded the value of life. One could however say that Sparker didn’t know or was convinced that his actions wouldn’t cause death. I argue, that Sparkler is adult with all mental capacities intact and can make logical objective choices. If he is unable to foreshadow the severity of setting fire close to a vulnerable population, then Sparker needs to undergo a mental health evaluation. At the present time, Sparker has been