Read the attached hypothetical and answer the questions. The hypothetical is also located in the files link.
Please discuss these questions and your thoughts within the Discussion link forum prior to submitting your final work. Hit Reply to start a new thread or just reply to another student’s thoughts.
After you discuss the topics among your peers in the discussion forum, and are ready to submit your final responses, go to the Assignments link and upload your final response to Canvas as a Word or PDF document.
You will post two separate documents; the initial post is one document and the two reply posts are a separate document.
The initial post is due on Canvas on Thursday, February 13th at 11:59 p.m. The initial post must be a minimum of 500 words (Approx.1 page) and is worth 20 points.
You must submit 2 reply posts to different students. The 2 reply posts are due on Canvas on Friday, February 14th at 11:59 p.m. Each reply post must be a minimum of 125 words (Approx. ¼ page) and are worth 5 points.
It is early November 1918. Condition in Germany are difficult because of the past
four years of World War I. There are food shortages and rising prices have been a
problem. Morale is low. Malnourishment is common. There are protests, riots and
strikes. By December of 1919, food prices are 5 times higher than they were in
1913. There are divisions between urban and rural regions. Urban residents
resent that rural dwellers have more food. Farmers resent the government price
controls. Thefts of farmers’ crops by a hungry urban population are common and
have reached epidemic proportion.
This is the situation facing Johann Schlicht, the owner of a fruit orchard in Reindorf,
of the Bavarian region. The police are wholly ineffective at stemming the recurring
thefts. Schlicht tries passive means of protecting his livelihood, such as fences
around the orchard, but all measures prove ineffective. It becomes clear that the
only effective means of protection will be the use of firearms.
Neither the thieves nor Schlicht need the fruit to avoid starvation. The thieves
want food without having to pay the inflated prices. Schlicht depends on the fruit to
make a living to support his family.
Schlicht sits in a shed at night amidst his fruit trees. He has his dog and a loaded
rifle. In the early morning, two men sneak into the orchard and begin stealing fruit
from the trees. Schlicht shouts at them to drop the fruit and threatens to shoot.
They nonetheless begin running away with the fruit. As the only means left to him
to prevent the theft, Schlicht fires buckshot in their direction and seriously injures
one of the, who is lucky he is not killed.
Schlicht is charged with intentional assault.
1. Would you convict Schlicht for his assault?
2. Is this a case of permissible defense against an imminent threat? Why or
why not? Give a detailed explanation for your decision. Discuss society’s
value of the right to hold private property as well the value of the lives of
all persons, even thieves.
3. What punishment would you impose, if any? Give the reasons for your
decision. Discuss the necessity requirement as well as the
proportionality requirement of the law.
Motti Askenazi is a thirty-year old man from a poor, crime-ridden South Tel Aviv
neighborhood. He is a drug addict and petty thief, who was just released from jail
after bungling a car burglar. He has been thinking for a while about getting off
drugs and putting his life together. One hot Friday afternoon in 1997, he is strolling
along a crowded beach and sees that someone has left a backpack unattended by
the sidewalk. He watches the bag for some time and when no one is watching, he picks up the backpack and quickly leaves, pleased by his good fortune. Without
opening the backpack, he walks down a nearby street and slips inside a rundown
apartment building. In the stairwell, he unzips the backpack to inspect his loot.
What he finds is a clock with wires connected to a cookie tin, with lose nails
surrounding the contraption. He quickly realized he has just stolen a terrorist’s
bomb
Panicked, but in control, he runs to a nearby hotel and tells the clerk what he found.
The clerk calls the police. The police arrive and start to deactivate the bomb.
Ashkenazi stands outside the building, keeping the street clear of people, and
warns a group of children to stay away. The police realize that the bomb is packed
with nearly three kilograms of explosives. After an hour, the police are able to use
a robot to shoot the backpack in a way that neutralizes the bomb. The police
search the area for more bombs and find none.
Ashkenazi is questioned by the police. First he lies and says he found the backpack
in the apartment building stairwell. Later, he confesses to having stolen the
backpack from the beach.
1. Should Ashkenazi be charged with theft of the backpack?
2. Is a justification defense appropriate in this case when Ashkenazi was not
aware he was saving lives when he steals the backpack? Or, is the theft of
the backpack the lesser harm than causing many deaths that otherwise
would have resulted? Why or why not?
3. What punishment would you impose, if any? Give the reasons for your
decision. Discuss whether Ashkenazi should be punished as any other thief
or whether he should have a justification defense.