is there legal backing to this thing? (1 Viewer)

[Newbie]

would courts recognised a defense where someone blamed their actions because they were possessed by a demon/god/pixie ?

would this same possession be accepted as an novus actus interviens?

cheers
links to reports are cool too if anyone has them handy

 

[Lazarus]

I suppose it's possible that there's a 16th century case out there where demonic possession might have been argued... but I think that even if it had been, the person would have probably been burned to death anyway.

In fact I think there's still a statute in England or Scotland which supposedly outlaws witchcraft.

But in the case of negligence, it'd be an argument against breach, not causation.

 

[redslert]

insanity???

 

[Newbie]

well my friends opponents for tomorw are doing that i think =/

in their submission they go

"The act of the God Apollonias constitutes a novus actus intervenius."

lol
laz you let my friends win tonight

 

[mrdaviyang]

well my friends opponents for tomorw are doing that i think =/

in their submission they go

"The act of the God Apollonias constitutes a novus actus intervenius."

lol
laz you let my friends win tonight

...........as if=)

 

[Lazarus]

They were good.

And, well, I think it's a bit late to address your novus point, but it would be better characterised as a coincidence, rather than the voluntary act of some deity (I think the trial judge would find, on the balance of probabilities, that the evidence of said deity would be somewhat lacking).