Foundation of Criminal Law - Essay Example

Topic: Foundation of Criminal Law Affiliation: 1A Criminal acts are defined by therelevant laws that apply and provide guidance as to the process of dealing with criminal acts. Stephen and Ashuk get involved in acts that the legal system provides for as theft. Theft can occur as both intentional and unintentional, based on the context in which it occurs1. Stephen receives more change at the train station than he should have. He did not realize this till later when the train has already left. At this point, Stephen cannot be said to be dishonest, an act that would in that regard result in theft.

He hurriedly received the change and proceeded to the train. Since he did not realize that he got more change from the shop, Stephen at that point did not engage in theft. However, upon realizing more change, he decided to keep it. He makes an assumption that the train tickets are overcharged, and he deserves the extra change. Stephen at this point is liable for theft. Stephen has not been asked to return the change and refused, taking a legal relief from this. However, keeping the money or spending it deprives the shop owner the extra change that Stephen gets.

On the other hand, Ashuk is involved in a similar act, with a newspaper being the property in this case. Ashuk did not own the paper assumed ownership and use, without knowing whether or not he was depriving Premila of her property. Stephen and Ashuk are liable for property appropriation. 1B Ghosh could be argued for and against, based on the specific matter being addressed. The objectivity and subjectivity of the matter being addressed should be critically evaluated and addressed2. Being primarily rooted in dishonesty, it is hard to establish the level of dishonesty involved.

In this regard, Ghosh is not satisfactory. This is because the Ghosh test relies on the decision of a reasonable person to determine whether or not the person involved is dishonest or not. Over and above this, the person in the actual act must ascertain whether or not he or she realized that the act involved was characterized by dishonesty. As a result, Ghosh tests and its pursuits are somehow contradictory within same or different contexts. The advantages of Ghosh test include the chance to reflect on the past account and how it could constitute a criminal act or not, and further account for criminal acts in relation to dishonesty.

On the other hand, Ghosh test is inadequate, and the fact that it relies on a reasonable person to rule over dishonesty creates loopholes in the justice context. 2A Criminal damage occurs where an offense results in losses, whether in property or injury to persons. Offences can be basic or aggravated, each of which constitute violation of fundamental laws3. Basic and aggravated offences can further be intentional or unintentional, each of which is punishable by law. In the case of Dawn for example, the intention was to buy a present from the store.

However, the more time Dawn spent looking for a perfect present, the more aggravated Dawn became, triggering a thought and subsequent actualization of an act of theft. Dawn makes an excuse for her action, but basically she concluded to steal after thinking that it is was worth the time she had spent in the store. 2B Under the Theft Act 1968, Dawn has committed a criminal offence. Although the initial intension is not to steal from the store, she arrives at such a decision following her disappointment in the fact that she failed to get a nice present for her mother.

Her bad luck in the store in relation to the present to the store is not the store’s fault. The store provided its stock, from which potential buyers would choose their preferred goodies. Dawn intentionally decides to steal. Under the Theft Act 1968 Dawn becomes liable for theft the moment she goes for the cabinet to take the bracelet. Customers are served by store attendants upon deciding on what they want to buy. However, Dawn appropriates the bracelet to herself, with the intention of not paying for it.

When the guard moves towards her, she makes an assumption that the guard intends to challenge her. She goes ahead to kick the guard’s leg and runs away. In so doing, violence is used over and above stealing the bracelet. This violence upgrades the magnitude of the crime committed to robbery with violence4. This is because she kicked the guard’s leg to pave way for her escape, while she takes the bracelet with her. Since Dawn walked into the store just like a regular customer, she cannot be said to have committed burglary.

In this regard, the Theft Act 1968 incriminates her for robbery with violence. Reference P. Nemeth, Criminal Law (2nd edit CRC Press, London 2011).