Criminal Liability “In a just society criminal liability should never be imposed without
some degree of blameworthiness”
Offences of strict liability are those, which do not require any mens
rea with regards to at least one or more of the actus rea. The mens
rea usually requires intention and or recklessness.
However some crimes are possible to commit without any knowledge,
intention or responsibility on behalf of the defendant. Therefore the
primary issue is should these defendants be guilty and held liable for
these crimes under strict liability.
In Gammon (Hong Kong) ltd v Attorney General (Hong Kong) 1984, the
grounds on which strict liability can be imposed were brought about;
As a general rule, the more serious the criminal offence created by
statute, the less likely the courts are to view it as an offence of
strict liability. For acts, which are truly criminal mens rea should
be needed in order to make the defendant liable and this is the case
in law, however the type of offence where men rea is not necessary and
one can be liable is when the statute is concerned with an issue of
social concern.
This principle was outlined in Sweet v Parsley 1970; the defendant was
convicted under s5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965, of "being
concerned in the management of premises used for the smoking of
cannabis". She appealed alleging that she had no knowledge of the
circumstances and indeed could not expect reasonably to have had such
knowledge. The House of Lords, quashing her conviction, held that it
had to be proved that the defenda...
... middle of paper ...
...he offence that took place.
I believe that that this is a delicate area for judges and that each
case should be reviewed in isolation and judges should have the right
for discretion. Each case will have different facts and diverse levels
of responsibility and so one rule cannot be made for all strict
liability cases. Strict liability should not be overruled entirely,
however should be reviewed by the law commission in order to prevent
those with no control over an offence and without the means to prevent
it being accountable for the crime. In a just society people should
not be sentenced just to make a point for the general public or for
the single reason that a judge feels someone should be held
responsible and the defendant is the only reasonable person to charge,
as this is not reasonable ground to charge someone.
For our second lesson in Critical Thinking I am choosing to explore Option # 2: different factors that impact a person’s criminal culpability. When one discusses the different factors that impact a person’s criminal culpability, a review of how responsible the offender is for the crime committed and the four levels of mens rea or criminal intent listed in order of severity or culpability (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently).
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
The TV show, Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, often addresses criminal deviance such as rape and murder. In the episode, “Scorched Earth,” an African immigrant maid becomes a rape victim of a rich, Italian prime minister named Distascio (Wolf). This episode highlights how status can affect perception of certain deviant behaviors. Additionally, it addresses contemporary America’s values toward types of deviant acts, and sanctions that go along with them.
While watching “Training Day” I was able to identify three criminal charges from Chapter 940, two charges from Chapter 943, and three charges from 946. I also could determine whether each were a Felony or a Misdemeanor, including the classification and punishment that goes with each. I could also explain if the actors could be charged with “conspiracy” or not. I also explained all the elements of the crime as well.
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.
Arguably, there are many reasons for punishment, including: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, restoration, and rehabilitation. The main aim of criminal law is to punish anybody who does wrong to the society; however, it is clear that there are different goals and forms of punishment as listen above. Notably, these differences exist because of the severity of the crime and its punishment. A murderer can be sentenced to die but a shoplifter cannot face the same sentence. The first type of punishment, retribution, punishes the crime doer because the system believes that it is right and fair. Therefore, it looks back at the crime and matches it with the best possible punishment (Schmalleger, 2013). The second type, incapacitation, is forward
There are several disagreements over the meaning of negligence, but it can be said to occur when the defendant has behaved in the way in which a reasonable person would not . There exists numerous crimes for which the mens rea is negligence, although some argue negligence should not be classified as a mens rea, where most of these are minor crimes of a regulatory nature . The concept of negligence is undoubtedly complex due to the fact that it is not certain whether it deserves criminal punishment. Whether culpability lies in choosing to act wrongly when having the capacity to do otherwise, or manifests itself in other forms such as carrying out a serious criminal offence regardless of lack of intention, recklessness or knowledge, continues to provoke debate. The arguments for and against the notion that serious criminal offences
Guilt in Crime and Punishment In Crime and Punishment, Fyodor Dostoyevsky tells the story of a young man who has been forced out of his studies at a university, by poverty. In these circumstances, he develops his theory of an extraordinary man (Frank 62). This conjecture is composed of the idea that all great men must climb over obstacles in their way to reach their highest potential and benefit humankind. In Raskolnikov's life, the great obstacle is his lack of money, and the way to get over this obstacle is to kill a pawnbroker that he knows.
The statute of limitation refers to the length of time in which a plaintiff can file a claim. The principle behind statute of limitation is that lawsuits cannot be improved as time passes by. For one, clear details of the facts can be blurred as memories can fade and witnesses may die, go away, or lose interest of the case. Ideally, court prefers to settle the case as soon as disputes develop (Warner, 2010). However, for professional and product liabilities, with injuries may take time to manifest, many courts adapted different rules such as postponing the running of the statute until the injury has been reasonably discovered. The length of time differs among states and branches of law (Danzon, 1985). The long and deferred statutes of limitations lead to long tail of claims and contributed majority of medical malpractice and product liability (Danzon, 1985). In this section, statutes of limitations for medical malpractice in two states are compared.
The current goal of punishment in the United States is to uphold social control by holding individuals in society accountable for breaking the law.
Crime and Punishment consists of many people who have committed distinct crimes, and all of them have served their punishments in one way or another. Raskolnikov was one of the main characters in the novel. Raskolnikov had committed the crime of a premeditated murder. Svidrigailov, on the other hand, did things because they made him feel good. Svidrigailov’s biggest crime was falling in love with Dunya. There are many ways a person can commit crime and there are many ways they can pay the punishment. Raskolnikov’s definition of crime was killing someone and defending himself by thinking that he had done nothing wrong. According to Svidrigailov, crime can be committed by doing something as harmless as falling in love. Some people can pay the punishment for the crime they committed by letting their inner conscience bite them, whereas, some people can make their own life miserable by wishing for something that just wasn’t meant to be.
In all Australian legal jurisdictions, children under the age of ten are considered to be too young to have criminal intent. That means, that children under this age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Australia is the only region in the world to have uniform legal guidelines on the lower age limit of criminal responsibility. (Weijers, Grisso 2009 p.45). Having the presumption that children under the age of ten are unable to know the law completely, therefore not being able to have mens rea, is in my opinion, necessary in our criminal courts. This essay will look at the reasons for the necessary use of the minimum age of criminal responsibility, such as the Beijing rules, the convention
Torts can be divided into two main categories; negligence and intentional torts. Negligence torts function as the hallmark of tort liability, and of tort law suits, are the most common. Under this legal premise, people have the responsibility to act with proper diligence and reasonable care and skill to avoid injuring other people. Intentional torts are civil wrongs that were committed deliberately. In contrast to a negligence act that is usually an accident caused by the lack of responsible care. Under tort law, intentional torts include acts of assault, battery, slander and libel, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Crime is an act in violation of a law, unlawful activity, an unjust, senseless, a disgraceful act or condition. A natural crime is an act that is harmful to the society in which one lives. Natural crimes are crimes in any society at any age, and whether or not the crimes are committed by people who are in authority or not. Crimes are forms of unloving behavior that cannot and should not be overlooked. Any natural crime against an individual is a crime against the entire society. Natural crimes are obvious crimes with obvious victims. People who commit robberies, murders, theft, rape, blackmail, extortion, and kidnapping are committing natural crimes. Natural crimes are considered serious crimes against society. Natural crimes are crimes that are committed intentionally, negligently, recklessly, and knowingly. Natural crimes cause the most harm, occur more frequently and are more widespread.
Individual responsibility provides a just and effective base that current Australian legal system. This following essay will analyse how the criminal justice system rests upon the idea of individualised responsibility with reference to the main two core principles that make person criminal liable, these being the Latin phrases Mens Rea “guilty mind and atus reas “Guilty act”. These two core principles will then be used to critically analyse the current model of individual responsibility to support that it is an effective and fair system for Australian criminal law. Finally this essay will conclude by outlining another alternative to the current model of individualised responsibility, which theory of scientific critique.