Principles of Criminal Liability - Term Paper Example

? Principles of Criminal Liability Principles of Criminal Liability Criminal liability is the base through which we are able to form the logical structure on which the Criminal Law is standing. The principles of criminal liability are those elements of crime that have occurred or not but have to be proven by the prosecutor. Some of the crimes involve a subset that includes all the principles of the liability and thus, these are known as “crimes of criminal conduct”, whereas some of the crimes involve the need of all the principle liabilities and these are known as “true crimes”. The rule that says that the prosecutor has to prove every element of the principles beyond reasonable doubt is called “corpus delicti rule” (Hall, 2011). When a crime is committed, it is said to have some elements that directly show how and why the crime has been committed in a broad view. These elements may include the presence of a mental state, a prohibited action and a lack of legal justification. These elements should be proven by the prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt and in the cases where these elements are not proven, the person who is charged of the crime should be charged not guilty. The principles are mens rea, actus reus, concordance and causation. These principles are related to one another in a significant way as if one doesn’t satisfy, then it can change the whole scenario, and thus all should collectively apply on the crime (Lanser and Bloy, 2000). Mens rea Mens rea is the Latin word for “guilty mind”. This is an element which shows that every crime is convicted in a state of mind. It is the state of mind of the defendant when he is or has committed the prohibited act of crime. In the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, the primary source used to define mens rea sets four standards. These standards suggest that the guilty mind can be attributed to those individuals who commit crimes “purposely”, “knowingly”, “recklessly”, or “negligently”. There have been developed statutes that provide more to the definition of these elements and they specify which mental states apply to which particular crimes (Hall, 2005). When an individual knows that his act will cause an expected negative result, it is “purposely”. When he commits an act being aware that his conduct will be highly risky of causing a negative result, he acts “knowingly”. When he knows that the act is going to be risky and still disregards the existence of the unjustifiable risks associated with the act, he is said to act “recklessly”. Lastly, if the individual has totally deviated themselves from the standard of care that he has towards a reasonable person, so he has committed the act “negligently”. In the criminal law, mens rea is considered as one of the most important and necessary elements that have to be present at the time of a crime. The common law system made the rule that the liability applies on the criminal on the grounds that the act will not make a person guilty of charge until and unless his mind is also guilty. Thus, it is important that there should be actus reus where mens rea is present to make sure that the defendant is charged of the crime he committed. So it can be held that the person who committed a crime without being at mental fault is generally not criminally liable for that act (Hall, 2005). Mens rea is not required in civil law as a subjective element to prove liability, but if a tort or a contract is breached with wrong intention, that may be counted in the offence and it would increase the scope of the liability on the offender and the measure of damages may be increased that have to be paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is evident that the existence of mens rea allows the accompanying principle of the actus reus as well and is closely related to each other. Without the presence of any one, liability will not be imposed (Hall, 2011). The principle issues on which mens rea is applied hold many stages of development. Some issues are said to be circumstantial where the mens rea is determined by the indirect evidence. Secondly, there are confessions which are a clear direction towards the evidence and existence of mens rea beyond any reasonable doubt because a confession has been made. Constructive intent is the intention to kill if a person is driving at high speed on an icy road which is filled with pedestrians. The general intent refers to the common principle of actus reus where the criminal has intended to commit a crime. Specific intent is the intention to commit an act which is beyond actus reus. Strict liability is where there is no need for evidence and thus requires no mens rea. Transferred intent is the issue where harm was intended for one victim and instead harmed the other. Concordance It is clear that there can be no liability for thinking of doing a criminal act. However, a crime must also have the element of actus reus which is the Latin word for “bad act”. Actus reus may be present in those acts where the defendant already knows that this act is prohibited by law and thus, unlawful. It has been further assessed that most of the crimes that are committed consist of a set of actions which is together prohibited in the law system. This principle can be established by looking at the example which says that carrying an item around the store is not a crime nor is to walk out of a store. But the crime would be when someone walks out of the store with an item which he hasn’t paid for. The fact that the person had the intention to do it as a crime and the action of actually doing it makes it clear that mens rea and actus reus have jointly taken place and thus it is a criminal act. Concordance is the relationship between the mens rea and the actus reus. As in many of the cases it has been found out by the judges that only the basis on the criminal mind and intention is not enough to judge whether he has committed a crime or not. On the other hand, it is also important for an intention to be present where there has been a criminal act convicted. If there is an absence of intention, the sentences and the charge of guilt will not be put on the criminal, and if there is an absence of a criminal act, then there can be no liability imposed nor can the person be charged for just intending to commit a crime. Mens rea and actus reus must be present simultaneously in order to make the criminal liability strong and imposable. The action of the crime and the intention to do the crime must take place together. This relationship and the existence of the concordance is decided by the judge or the jury. The judges examine the evidence and suggest whether it is direct or circumstantial and does it impose legal liability on the criminal or not (Hall, 2011). The principle issues of concordance can be attendant circumstances which mean that some of the crimes have elements that are additional and help in accompanying the relationship between the criminal act and the criminal mind, for e.g., rape is an offence but not with your wife. The enterprise liability is imposed in the common law and this is the idea which illustrates that the act and the mens rea can be imputed into the corporation, e.g. is product safety. The year-and-a-day rule is a common law rule in which the end result of the crime has to occur within a year and within a day of the criminal’s intention. Vicarious liability is the rule where the guilty side is not the individual who committed the crime; rather he will be the person who intended to commit it. Causation Causation is another element of the principles of the criminal liability. Causation means the casual relationship between the act and the result. Causation actually links the conduct to the result which is the injury. Through causation, the courts analyze whether the injury and the seriousness of the injury was because of the conduct directly, or because of some intervening events. It is used in the criminal law and is applied with the presence of actus reus, mens rea and then it suggests whether the person of charge is guilty or not. So the definition remains that an act committed and because of which an injury arose and then it is connected with the state of mind behind the act. Causation can only be applied to those offences where the end result of the act is also achieved, not on those offences that do not give a complete structure of the incident. This means that if mens rea is there, actus reus is there but it is found that the actual injury to the victim is not because of that act and that intention, the person will not be guilty. The principle issues for causation are that the actual cause should be known which means that it should give a necessary condition that can prove causation beyond reasonable doubt. The ‘but for’ test shows that the chain of events that took place should be examined and ‘but for’ the act, the result would have occurred anyways sooner or later. Intervening cause means that there are unforeseen events that hold the defendant responsible. The legal causation is the rule that the prosecutor’s logic tells that the actual and proximate cause. Proximate cause means that the defendant should not be allowed to go far back into events to form causation, but the nearest of the events should be illustrated (Herring, 2012). The causation has to be proved and the prosecution has to prove that the defendant’s act was; factually the cause of the consequence, legally the cause of the consequence and no intervening act was present which broke the chain of causation. The factual causes include the ‘but for’ test, the legal cause means that the conduct should be a minimal cause of the result and not a substantial cause of the consequence. The intervening acts that can occur tend to break the chain of causation and then there is no relationship proved of the conduct and the consequence. If there is an intervening event, the defendant is not guilty. This act depends upon the seriousness of the act. The intervening event can be the act of the victim themselves, the acts of a third party or a natural but an unforeseeable event. However, it can be concluded that to prove that there has been a criminal act convicted, their needs to be mens rea, actus reus, concordance and causation. These principles are related to each other and they have to exist jointly to prove that the act was criminal and should be dealt under the severe laws of the criminal law. References Hall J. (2005) General Principles Of Criminal Law. UK: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. Hall D. (2011) Criminal Law and Procedure. London: Cengage Learning. Herring J. (2012) Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lanser D., Bloy D. (2000) Principles of Criminal Law. London: Routledge. Read More