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
THE PRINCIPLE OF ACTUS REUS
· 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.
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.
There are two public policy justifications for criminal liability and these are that conspiracy works with attempts to nip the criminal purposes in the bud and it also hits at the special danger of a groups criminal activity. For example, Dan is driving a car and Charles and Ryan are passengers. Dan stops the car and the two passengers get out and leave the doors open. These passengers rob and accost someone and jump back in and Dan drives off. A jury could find that the robbery was planned by all three of them and they could be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit robbery. To prove a conspiracy one needs to prove the actus reus and the mens rea. The conspiracy actus rea is the agreement to commit a crime and act to further the agreement. Conspiracy mens rea is the mental element of
“ Criminal law is the body of law that relates to crime.” (Wikipedia, 2014) This law encompasses several different aspects of our government and the ways used to regulate them. Maintaining the peace and order of the public is one aspect. Law enforcement officers also try to keep good conduct of the public. Anyone who places the safety of the public in jeopardy, is in violation of this law. Punishment is used in a variety of ways to discipline any person who breaks these laws. There are four main sources used in today’s criminal law:
wards of the hospitals-- all this with her money! Kill her, take her money, dedicate
Luck, Moral Guilt and Legal Guilt. The question of whether luck should play a role in our assessment of other people is fundamental to human society. Our judicial laws express the view that we are responsible for our actions; in other words, luck does have a bearing on the determination of legal guilt; since legal guilt is theoretically based on moral guilt, this means that luck is usually considered to have a bearing on moral guilt as well. However, there are serious difficulties with this system of judgment.
Society has many different views on crime and punishment. During earlier times, the crime fit the punishment meaning an “eye for an eye” approach. If a thief was caught, their hands would be cut off. If a man killed another man, they would be killed as well. They did not have a chance to tell their side of the story, if people thought they were guilty, they were. Much has changed in the way we handle crime in the world today. In today’s world, when a person commits a crime they have rights to a fair trial and have the luxury of the Fifth Amendment. Now when a killer kills someone they get to tell their side of the story and have to be proven guilty. However, it does not matter where you go, if there are people then there will always be crime.
Crime is some action/omission that causes harm in a situation that the person/group responsible ‘ought’ to be held accountable and punished irrespective of what the law book of state say.
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.
With the rapid increase in crime rates, the defendants must act recklessly or intentionally to be held guilty. Crimes can be classified into two types of intents; general, and specific intent.
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
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
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.
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.
The prevalence and misuse of the insanity defense in our legal system is astounding. Cases upon cases site drugs, brain tumors, car accidents involving head injury, blackouts and antisocial behavior as circumstantial evidence of a crime that was committed. These crimes involve murder, rape and robbery. The question of where criminal accountability lies and how we are able to hold someone accountable for an act may boil down to the brain itself. Where in the brain do reason, morality and inhibition lie? If these areas are affected by some disorder does that then mean that a criminal is no longer held accountable for their actions? Is there a specific area of the brain where accountability itself may lie? These seem to be questions that are not only debated in the classroom, but hospitals and courtrooms as well.
According to, The Nature of Criminal Law, Constitutional Rights, Defenses, and Punishment, through the Saylor Foundation (page 316), criminal law is an