Principles of Criminal Liability

  • Length: 1086 words (3.1 double-spaced pages)
  • Rating: Excellent
Open Document

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Text Preview

More ↓

Continue reading...

Open Document

Principles of Criminal Liability
"Law, with all its weaknesses, is all that stands between civilization
and barbarism" (John Derbyshire)

Criminal Liability is what unlocks the logical structure of the
Criminal Law. Each element of a crime that the prosecutor needs to
prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) is a principle of criminal
liability. There are some crimes that only involve a subset of all the
principles of liability, and these are called "crimes of criminal
conduct". Burglary, for example, is such a crime because all you need
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is an actus reusconcurring with a
mens rea. On the other hand, there are crimes that involve all the
principles of liability, and these are called "true crimes". Homicide,
for example, is such a crime because you need to prove actus reus,
mens rea, concurrence, causation, and harm. The requirement that the
prosecutor must prove each element of criminal liability beyond a
reasonable doubt is called the "corpus delicti rule".

Liability needs to be distinguished from the following concepts:

* culpability (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently) -
infers intent

* capacity (infancy, intoxication, insanity) - capacity defenses

* responsibility (volition, free will, competency) - presumptions

There are five principles of liability in Criminal Law:

* Principle of Actus Reus

* Principle of Mens Rea

* Principle of Concurrence

* Principle of Causation

* Principle of Resulting Harm


· involuntariness -- sleepwalking, hypnotic behavior, etc. are seen as
examples of acting upon forces beyond individual control, and are
therefore not normally included in the principle of actus reus.

Need Writing Help?

Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.

Check your paper »

How to Cite this Page

MLA Citation:
"Principles of Criminal Liability." 23 May 2018
Title Length Color Rating  
Assessment of the Likley Risks of Tort and Criminal Liability Essay - Assessment of the Likley Risks of Tort and Criminal Liability Dear Mr. Bond: The purpose of this letter is to identify and assess the likely risks of tort and criminal liability arising from the operations of Joe’s Landscaping and Tree Trimming (JLTS) business. The assessment will supply guidance as Joe selects his insurance needs. ”Tort liability is a claim against JLTS or its employees for damage to or loss of property or personal injury or death. Such claims may be brought only for damage, injury, or death arising out of the activities of JLTS” (Palk, 2001, p.1)....   [tags: Tort Law] 544 words
(1.6 pages)
Strong Essays [preview]
Criminal Liability Essay - 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....   [tags: Papers] 556 words
(1.6 pages)
Good Essays [preview]
Criminal Procedure Essay - The due process and crime control models, both created by Stanford University law professor Herbert Packer, represents two opposing method of principles functioning within criminal justice system. Although the models describe the important facets of the politics and practice of criminal justice, both have been criticized since presented by Packer in 1964. Presently both models are acknowledged as imperfect standards to explain the politics and law of criminal justice. The crime control ideal represents traditional principles, whereas the due process belief reflects moderate values; therefore generating conflict evident throughout the years....   [tags: Criminal Justice ]
:: 4 Works Cited
1407 words
(4 pages)
Powerful Essays [preview]
Exploration of English Criminal Law Essay - The British legal system convicts or acquits criminals based primarily on two principles - actus reas (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). In order for an unlawful situation to arise, both these conditions must be present. The actus reas of a crime deals with the circumstances and consequence of the crime whilst the mens rea is considering the state of mind of the person committing the crime. A hypothetical situation would be one of D intending to kill X and subsequently carrying this out - D would have both the actus reas and the mens rea and could be trialled....   [tags: Criminal Law Essays] 1787 words
(5.1 pages)
Better Essays [preview]
Does the South African Criminal Law Need a Defence of Entrapment? Essay - ... Therefore it is not acceptable that officers create crimes for the purpose of prosecuting and punishing.8 possibilities to prevent officers from persuading people to commit a crime. The defence of entrapment prohibits a conviction when the accused had no intention to commit a crime, and only committed the crime because law officers persuaded him. It is unlawful for police officers to manufacture crimes. If entrapment is raised as criminal defence, the burden of proof lies with the government....   [tags: law exchange, criminal law] 2314 words
(6.6 pages)
Better Essays [preview]
Exploring Strict Liability Essay - Exploring Strict Liability Strict liability is a legal doctrine in tort law that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea. The plaintiff needs only to prove that the tort happened and that the defendant was responsible. Neither good faith nor the fact that the defendant took all possible precautions are valid defences. Strict liability often applies to those engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous ventures....   [tags: Papers] 977 words
(2.8 pages)
Strong Essays [preview]
English Law's Uses of the Concept of Fault When Deciding Liability or Guilt - English Law's Uses of the Concept of Fault When Deciding Liability or Guilt Fault is regarded as blame, or responsibility for doing something wrong. This concept of fault is integral to the English legal system when it comes to deciding guilt of liability. In fact, in many areas of law if fault could not be assigned, the system would fall apart as liability can only be found if fault is established first. Fault is particularly important to Tort law, where fault is often a requirement of the mens rea....   [tags: Papers] 960 words
(2.7 pages)
Good Essays [preview]
What is Corporate Governance Essay - ... The company sold the pub for a considerable sum, but it never declared all of the money. An ‘under the counter’ cash payment was made to a director, and other cash payments were made to the controlling shareholders. The purchaser was given a reduced price for co-operating with the deal. This was held to be fraudulent trading, and all involved in the fraud, including the purchaser, were held liable personally for the debts of the company. This case also showed that one act is enough, that the perpetrator doesn’t need to commit a series of acts over a period of time....   [tags: fraudulent actions, business principles] 2015 words
(5.8 pages)
Better Essays [preview]
Strict Liability in Criminal Law Essay - It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use. Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s), regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will identify and explore these arguments....   [tags: Criminal Law Essays] 1425 words
(4.1 pages)
Strong Essays [preview]
Occupiers' Liability from the Common Law Essays - The first point to note when analysing occupiers’ liability is that originally it was separate to the general principles of negligence which were outlined in Donoghue v Stevenson .The reason for this “pigeon hole approach” was that the key decision of occupiers’ liability, Indermaur v Dames was decided sixty six years prior to the landmark decision of Donoghue v Stevenson . McMahon and Binchy state the reason why it was not engulfed into general negligence, was because it “… had become too firmly entrenched by 1932 … to be swamped by another judicial cross-current” Following on from Indermaur v Dames the courts developed four distinct categories of entrant which I will now examine in tu...   [tags: neighbour principle,liability act 1957]
:: 5 Works Cited
1692 words
(4.8 pages)
Powerful Essays [preview]

Related Searches

However, certain "voluntarily induced involuntary acts" such as drowsy
driving might arguably be included if the prior voluntary act created
the risk of a future involuntary act.

· manifest criminality -- caught red-handed, clear-cut case of actus
reusproven beyond a reasonable doubt

· possession -- the law recognizes various degrees of this. Actual
possession means physically on your person. Constructive possession
means physically under your control. Knowing possession means you know
what you are possessing. Mere possession means you don't know what you
are possessing. Unwitting possession is when something has been
planted on you. The only punishable types of possession are the ones
that are conscious and knowable.

· procuring -- obtaining things with the intent of using them for
criminal purposes; e.g., precursor chemicals for making narcotics,
"pimping" for a prostitute, and procuring another to commit a crime
("accessory before the fact")

· status or condition -- sometimes a chronic condition qualifies as
action, e.g., drug addiction, alcoholism, on the assumption that first
use is voluntary. Sometimes the condition, e.g. chronic alcoholism, is
treated as a disease which exculpates an individual. Most often, it's
the punishment aspect of criminal law in these kinds of cases that
triggers an 8th Amendment issue. Equal Protection and other
constitutional issues may be triggered.

· thoughts -- sometimes, not often, the expression of angry thoughts,
e.g., "I'll kill you for that" is taken as expressing the resolution
and will to commit a crime, but in general, thoughts are not part of
the principle of actus reus. Daydreaming and fantasy are also not
easily included in the principle of mens rea.

· words -- these are considered "verbal acts"; e.g. sexual harassment,
solicitation, terroristic threats, assault, inciting to riot.


· circumstantial -- determination of mens rea through indirect

· confessions -- clear-cut direct evidence of mens rea beyond a
reasonable doubt

· constructive intent -- one has the constructive intent to kill if
they are driving at high speeds on an icy road with lots of
pedestrians around, e.g.

· general intent -- the intent to commit the actus reusof the crime
one is charged with; e.g., rape and intent to penetrate

· specific intent -- the intent to do something beyond the actus reusof
the crime one is charged with; e.g., breaking and entering with intent
to burglarize

· strict liability -- crimes requiring no mens rea; liability without
fault; corporate crime, environmental crime

· transferred intent -- the intent to harm one victim but instead harm


· attendant circumstances -- some crimes have additional elements that
must accompany the criminal act and the criminal mind; e.g., rape, but
not with your wife

· enterprise liability -- in corporate law, this is the idea that both
the act and the agency (mens rea) for it can be imputed to the
corporation; e.g., product safety

· year-and-a-day rule -- common law rule that the final result of an
act must occur no later than a year and a day after the criminal state
of mind. For example, if you struck someone on the head with intent to
kill, but they didn't die until a year and two days later, you could
not be prosecuted for murder. Many states have abolished this rule or
extended the time limit. In California, it's three years.

· vicarious liability -- sometimes, under some rules, the guilty party
would not be the person who committed the act but the person who
intended the act; e.g., supervisors of employees


· actual cause -- a necessary but not sufficient condition to prove
causation beyond a reasonable doubt; prosecutor must also prove
proximate cause

· but for or sine qua non causation -- setting in motion a chain of
events that sooner or later lead to the harmful result; but for the
actor's conduct, the result would not have occurred

· intervening cause -- unforeseen events that still hold the defendant

· legal causation -- a prosecutor's logic of both actual and proximate

· proximate cause -- the fairness of how far back the prosecutor goes
in the chain of events to hold a particular defendant accountable;
literally means the next or closest cause

· superceding cause -- unforeseen events that exculpate a defendant


These are issues involving the law of accessories and attempts (later


Presumptions are court-ordered assumptions that the jury must take as
true unless rebutted by evidence. Their purpose is to simplify and
expedite the trial process. The judge, for example at some point in
testimony, may remind the jury that it is OK to assume that allpeople
form somekind of intent before or during their behavior. It is wrong,
however, for the judge to order the jury to assumeintent or a specific
kind of intent in a case. Presumptions are not a substitute for
evidence. Presumptions are supposed to be friendly reminders about
safe, scientific assumptions about human nature or human behavior in
general. The most common presumptions are:

· reminders that the accused is considered innocent until proven

· reminders that the accused is to be considered sane, normal, and

It is important to understand that presumptions are not inferences.
Presumptions mustbe accepted as true by the jury. Inferences maybe
accepted as true by the jury, but the trick is to get the jury to
believe they thought of it first. Lawyers are not allowed to engage in
the practice of "stacking of inferences", or basing an inference
solely upon another inference. Lawyers are also prohibited by logic
from making certain "impermissible inferences" and here's an example
of how the logic goes:

Evidence admitted:

Inferences that can be drawn:

Witnesses testify that X repeatedly hit Y on the head with a club
until stopped by passerbys

Intent to kill or seriously injure; Purposely or Knowingly using club
as deadly weapon.

Witnesses testify that X repeatedly hit Y on the head with a rolled-up

Intent to kill cannot be inferred; newspaper cannot be construed as a
deadly weapon

Return to