Conviction of First Degree Murder

Doug, heavily intoxicated, shot and killed Tom after Tom came to his apartment due to Doug's previous behavior that hurt his girlfriend's leg. The case involves issues of intent, deliberation, premeditation, malice, and intoxication. Applying relevant laws, it can be concluded that Doug violated different laws and murdered Tom with first-degree murder, making him guilty of the crime. He can be charged with first-degree murder and potentially face a death penalty or life imprisonment.

Issue
Doug was heavily drunk and shot Tom dead with his pistol when the latter furiously went to his
apartment because the former hurt his girlfriend’s leg by throwing out a bottle through his
window. He fled but stopped by the security personnel of a bus company because the pistol that
he was carrying was of the same caliber, which is believed to have been used in homicide. He
was finally arrested and charged with murder. So, would he be convicted of first degree murder
or any lesser offences?
Rule
The first degree murders generally demand harshest punishments with regards to any crime.
However, sentencing can vary from state to state. As for the current case, it is important to
understand which laws were violated by Doug. Because of the applicability of the punitive
measures, we have to first find out whether the elements of first degree murder were present or
not. The first element that is conspicuous in first degree murders is intent, which refers to the
willfulness for ending a human life. Sometimes, an individual is forced due to certain
circumstances to kill another person, however, showing a depraved indifference towards human
life could also qualify as a murder of the first degree. Secondly, deliberation and premeditation
form the basis for the determination of punishment. It is looked that whether the perpetrator had
contemplated at length and devised a plan for the murder. The point is these two elements should
occur well before the incident not at the time of the killing. Almost all the law books maintain
that the criminals of first degree murder must have possessed a feeling of malice. It is basically
an evil disposition as well as a complete indifference to the human life. Under Section 1 of 565.
020, a person is said to have committed a first degree murder if he or she deliberately and
knowingly kills someone after a proper deliberation regarding the matter. This offense is
considered as a Class A felony and it the perpetrator is 18 or more than 18 years of age, he could
be awarded a death penalty or life imprisonment without any ground for probation or parole.
Doug was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon while trying to travel through a bus.
Concealment in such cases entails that usually the weapon is not viewed by anyone while the
person is walking through a street. This situation creates a necessary risk of intentional and
accidental shootings. However, carrying a weapon is not enough for any person to get punished,
so the elements that are looked for in terms of establishing a guilt are - Age and ability
requirements, residency, application, safety training and criminal background. The punishments
that are awarded for carrying a concealed weapon are fines, jail and probation.
Finally, there is also an issue of intoxication. As per the facts, the defendant was heavily
intoxicated during the incident of crime. Under Modal Penal Code (MPC), any form of
intoxication can only constitute to defense to a crime, if it eliminates the primary elements of
crime like intent. MPC recommends that for intoxication to be overlooked during a crime, the
criminal defendant should have to prove the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct
and assert his conduct towards the necessity of the law.

Application
In the present scenario, the sequence of the events were such that one incident led to the other.
While Doug was sitting at home, he was drinking and heavily intoxicated. However, it is
possible that the intoxication can render a deprived mental capacity that is used to form an intent
required by law in order to establish a conviction. Perpetrators who are accused of crimes have
often presented the arguments on the narrative that they can’t be held fully responsible for the
actions they committed due to the fact that they were not in complete control of themselves
because of intoxication. In most of the offences, the prosecutors are required to prove an element
of general intent to commit a crime. That is, the defendant intentionally did something that is
strictly prohibited by the law.
It is quite clear that Doug was beyond a state of sanity and sensibility. However, he still
remembered that he had a pistol and used it the way it is used so that an immediate killing could
take place. So, there was a visible criminality on the part of Doug even if he was drunk.
Moreover, it is not suffice to use intoxication as an excuse for a criminal conduct. This fact could
be put like this way – if a drunk person happens to fire a pistol on a new year’s eve and
somebody gets killed. He might not have planned to intentionally kill the person or he might not
have known the person or might not have known the person. But it can be said that the
perpetrator, Doug in this case, has a general intent to break the law and he murdered Tom with a
general intent of breaking the law. Therefore, as per the law, he could be charged with
manslaughter.
The next situation is he was carrying a pistol and apprehended on account of that. As per the law,
a carried weapon also moves with the person possessing it. So, the difficulty with the weapon is
that while on the move, the person comes across different locations and situations thus creating
possibilities all the time for its use. Whenever, the weapon is concealed by a person, he does not
allow others to know about its possession and therefore, the possible victims are not able to
defend themselves because no one can expect these things could happen to them suddenly. The
laws regarding concealed weapons limit the kind of weapon prohibited, which include knives,
firearm and explosives. So, in Doug’s case, the weapon was the one with a caliber of carrying
out a homicide. Moreover, the ballistics tests that were conducted later on proved that it was the
same pistol that killed Tom. So, there remains no doubt in the fact that Doug possessed a
concealed weapon and he killed Tom with it thereby making him a perpetrator of first degree
murder.
Finally, the way Tom entered into the house of Doug was certainly not the suggestive of friendly
intentions on the part of Tom either. So, this fact can provide an escape route for Doug as he saw
Tom coming forcefully towards him with his tight fists. The counsels for the defendant can argue
that what Doug did was an act of self-defense and it happened in the heat of the moment.
However, this is a weak argument that he did all of that in a self-defense. He saw Tom with his
closed fists, which means the most he could do was hit him or struck him down provided he had
apparently no weapon with him that could have drove him to take the step of killing him. Under
no circumstances, should anyone can kill others on the premise that they could be hit by blowing
a punch. Moreover, there was also a possibility of solving the matter by striking a conversation

because after all he did not deliberately hit Tom’s girlfriend. Hence, the self-defense is no escape
for Doug and he should still be charged for the first degree murder.
Conclusion
By going through the case and analyzing it bit by bit, applying relevant laws and observing all
the facts of the case, we found that Doug violated different laws and murdered Tom with a first
degree. He was a runaway criminal, which proves his guilt a step further. Therefore, he can be
charged for first degree murder and can be awarded a death penalty or life imprisonment.