1. Analysis of the bipartite system
Arguably the simpler of both systems – the bipartite system is mainly used in the common law countries, as well as in France and other French-speaking countries. Distinguishing between actus reus, which is the external side of the criminal offence and mens rea, which is the internal, the basic principle of this system is that for every criminal offense, a combination of both actus reus and mens rea must be present. This idea was first expressed by Edward Coke, who by using a common law precedent, namely that a potential thief who acquires the possession first and then forms the intention to steal is considered to be not guilty of theft. His reasoning was based on the fact that the intent (mens rea) to steal developed after and not synchronously with the actual act of stealing (actus reus).
…show more content…
This major flaw is in the area of defenses – the bipartite system fails to find a place within its structure for the different areas of defenses, which fall under the division of excuses and justifications. All the different types of defenses (e.g self-defense, necessity, intoxication, insanity, duress) stand outside of the strictly defined bipartite structure of actus reus and mens rea.
One of the typical features of this system is its specific theory of mistake, which reduces the theory to factors negating the required mens rea. An example here is that a mistake about an essential feature of the offence will countermand intention.
The bipartite system may also be addressed in the framework of the so-called quadripartite system which was for the most part included in the criminal liability literature of the Communist
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that... ... middle of paper ... ...
Crimes are deliberate acts, with the intent of benefiting the offender. 2. Benefiting unsuccessfully in choosing the best decisions because of the risks and uncertainty involved. 3. Decision making significantly varies with the nature of the crime. 4. Involvement decisions are quite different from the commission (event decision) of a specific act. 5. Involvement decisions are divided into three stages: first time involvement (initiation), continued involvement (habituation) and ceasing to offend (desistance), 6. Event decisions include a sequence of choices made at each stage of the criminal act, involvement model, background factors and situational life styles, initiation (of becoming involved in a crime), habituation (deciding to continue with crime), distance (deciding to stop criminal behavior) and event model – criminal even
This system, therefore, had two effects. In my opinion, Right and wrong are inherited in the nature of things, and people cannot deny that. The punishment must be proportional to the crime. There should be as few laws as possible. With neoclassical criminology, people are to be protected from actions that would kill them an in my opinion it is not just.
There are many different meanings of crime and many different reasons people commit crimes. In the United States, defense lawyers try to prove their clients did not know what they were doing when they committed the crime and the prosecution tries to prove the defendant did know what they were doing when they committed the crime. However, the prosecution must have the elements of a crime, which means state of facts to prove someone guilty. The prosecution lawyers and the defense lawyers use elements of a crime for the defendant. The following are examples of elements of a crime: mens rea, autus reus, concurrence of actus renus and mens rea. All of these can be used as elements of a crime.
A two-party system is a political system in which only two parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected officials end up being a member in one of the two major parties. In a two-party system, one of the parties usually holds a majority in the legislature hence, being referred to as the majority party while the other party is the minority party. The United States of America is considered to be a two-party system. A two-party system emerged early in the history of the new Republic. Beginning with the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties have dominated national politics, although which particular two parties has changed with the times and issues. During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and Republicans emerged as the two dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third parties emerged, but few of them remained in existence for very long. Today the Democrats and Republican still remain as the dominant parties. These two parties hav...
Kruelgor. "Two Party Political System - Recipe for Disaster: Civil Wars throughout History." The Political Machine. 28 Mar. 2008. Web. 18 Aug. 2011. .
The “mens rea” of first degree murder is that the person, with time and intent, planned out or premeditated the murder. The “actus reas” of first degree murder is the actual act of committing the murder after planning it (Lippman, 2006).
Morality or ccorrective justice-Particular aims of tort law are usually erected under one of two large systems of thought.
The primary principle of sentencing is stated under section 718.1 of the Criminal Code, “a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.” In other words the sentence must be fair to the offender while holding them responsible under mens rea; having a guilty mind. This idea holds that punishment has to be appropriate based on crime committed.
By viewing the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not account for the criminal offender’s motives for breaking the law. A judge may believe it is morally right to lessen the punishment of an offender, who had good intentions for committing the crime. An individual may be placed in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force them to commit a crime. Unfortunately for those individuals, truth in sentencing in the equal justice perspective does not allow for the judge’s discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people commit the same crime, yet one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions. A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
arrangement in which relative wealth, rank and the skill of both husband and wife must be
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
Identify the three levels of the Tripartite Framework for Understanding Multiple Levels of Identity. Provide a definition and example of each level. (6pts)
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability from a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of said defences. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application.