Compare And Contrast Tort And Criminal Law

1. What is the definition of an "ex post facto" law and why are they unfair? Ex post facto is a law that retroactively changes the lawful results of activities that were conferred, or connections that existed, before the authorization of the law. It is out of line since it might criminalize activities that were lawful when perpetrated; it might exasperate a wrongdoing by bringing it into a more extreme class than it was in when it was carried out; it might change the discipline recommended for a wrongdoing, as by including new punishments or broadening sentences; or it might modify the tenets of confirmation so as to make conviction for a wrongdoing likelier than it would have been the point at which the deed was carried out.

2. Compare and contrast tort and criminal law. What are some types of behavior that would be covered by both types of law? In criminal law, the indictment is by the legislature. Disciplines might be fines (paid to the administration) or the correctional facility. In tort law, the offended party who brings the claim is the individual who was specifically harmed and the discipline is normally installment of harms to the individual harmed. A few demonstrations of conduct that would be secured by both sorts of laws are whether some individual physically hit another person and intended to bring about damage on them that would

What is the rationale for such offenses? 3) What is a strict obligation offense? What is the basis for such offenses? Strict obligation is when mens rea does not need to be demonstrated to at least one components, in spite of the fact that goal, rashness or learning might be required in connection to different components of the offense. The obligation is strict in light of the fact that individuals will be indicted despite the fact that they were truly oblivious of at least one components that made their demonstrations criminal. They may subsequently not be chargeable in any genuine