General Principles of Criminal Liability - Assignment Example

General Principles of Criminal Liability Solution Criminal law as based on the English law that delivers justice on several cases of crimes and wrongdoings that take place in a society has an inherent connection with morality. This can be said because it is the basic principles followed within a society and basic societal constructions that lead to the determination of the system of justice and legal behaviour. The morality and moral assessment of an issue is associated with the justice and hence with criminal law in a society (Walters 2011). It has been existent in the roots of the human beings that anything that is good is considered as morally correct and is associated with one’s daily normal activities. And, anything that does not match with such goodness is evil or crime deserving punishment. Such a belief is followed by the society as a whole and such moral thoughts consider crime as evil, reflecting a direct association of the criminal law and morality (Gilly, Gilinskiy and Sergevnin 2009). Jurisprudential positivists have tried to focus on the fact that law and morality are separated. The connection between law and morality was mainly supported by the classical natural law thinkers. However positivism reflects a theory that criminal law is not associated with moral. The positivists tried their best to distinguish between law and morality but it could be obtained that if the two were separated then all intersections of criminal law and morality would be rejected. Thus the concept of positivism in relation to cause a separation between law and morality was found to be confusing and hence eventually unacceptable (Legal Positivism of Law 2012). The inherent relation between law and morality has become more prominent. This is reflected in issues of homosexual marriage or rights of abortion where the criminal law based on English law can be seen to be supporting issues based on the moral principles carried by the society since the early times. One of the most common cases in the English law that reflects on the relation between the criminal law and mortality is the Regina v. Dudley & Stephens Case. The case reflects upon two men and a boy who became stranded at a sea, and when they were almost dying, the two men decided to kill the boy and eat him up, considering the fact that the boy did not have a family like they did, and also was starving. However, post their rescue, the two men were charged by the court as guilty of the murder and the law does not have support for the excuse they presented (Regina v. Dudley & Stephens: Morality, Murder and the Criminal Law 2009). In the above mentioned cases, the decisions of the legal system have significantly been based on the moral beliefs of the society. Thus it can be said that although the positivists tried to distinguish the two considering the fact that the nature of the law needs to be different and irrespective of the moral beliefs of the society; however, it could not be achieved and hence the inherent relation of law and morality is prevalent and can be significantly seen in several criminal cases in the present times. Solution 2: As far as legal certainty with regard to English law is concerned, there are laws that determine the laws in the system. There are particular discipline and approaches of all lawyers that they use for resolution of legal issues. One of the main aims of the system of precedent is to establish legal certainty. Considering the law of precedent, the legal system should stand by what it has decided on any particular issue. This is also known as the doctrine of stare decisis, where for example, the decision taken by a High Court is imposed upon the lower courts. However, such a legal system would only mean that in certain cases, the treatment for same crimes or acts might become different thereby raising the question of injustice, if the precedent cases are not highlighted or overviewed while considering a current case (Perell 1987). As could be observed in the case of Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd, the judgment was based on the Practice Statement of the House of Lords where the case had arisen from complaints by the Level Brothers against Bell in regard to certain speculative transactions made by Bell, but such complaints came post to signing of their deals. To this, firstly, judgment was given by Wright J for Lever Brothers focusing on the fact that both parties had entered into agreements in a common belief, and hence the case was based on a mutual mistake done by the parties. Later this judgment was supported by the Court of Appeal (Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd n.d.). The law has now developed over the years with the Supreme Court having the power to make the final judgments on cases and being the final authority in the federal law system. Even if lower courts have taken up certain cases and given their verdicts, if the case is passed to the Supreme Court, the trials are repeated and it is the decision of the Supreme Court that is the final decision and would be accepted by all. This in turn establishes the legal certainty in regard to any particular act or punishment. As is now believed and followed in the legal system, without precedent the legal certainty in a case can never be achieved. The value of the precedent has been significantly supported by the Supreme Court, hence developing the law. This can be particularly associated with the society because with changing times, there are changes in the mindset of the society as well. Hence the Supreme Court would take into consideration the need for precedence and change in decisions if the society has changed values and would demand for an improved judgment on a case (Grama 2010). Thus it could be obtained that the law of precedent has developed over the time with the changing need and demand of the society where legal certainty needs to be established but with taking into consideration the precedents, otherwise which it might be the case where same acts of ill behaviours would receive different treatments, and hence reflect injustice. This has been significantly considered and developed by the Supreme Court. Solution 3: In order to be liable for a criminal offence in English law, it is essential that an individual must have committed an act of guilty and also possesses a mind, which is guilty. A guilty mind would be analyzed by the intention, recklessness, and the negligence that an individual reflects upon. If the guilty mind and the guilty act, which are the two main elements of criminal liability, are present at the same point of time, then the individual is considered as a criminal liability. As it says (Elliot and Quinn n.d.): Actus reus + Mens rea = Criminal offense; where, Actus reus refers to a guilty act and Mens rea refers to a guilty mind. The guilty act comprises of all the elements of crime that also takes into consideration the situation when the act has been committed and the consequences of the act. For example in case of the act of rape, there is a lack of consent from the victim, which would be considered as the situation of the actus reus in order to consider the act as a criminal offense. Also, such acts must be voluntary in nature. Action, omission, and state of affairs are the three forms of actus reus (Elliot and Quinn n.d.). Mens rea is the state of the mind of the individual committing an act of crime where the intention, negligence, and recklessness of the individual are taken into consideration. The intention may not have the same meaning in every case. For example, in the case of Steane (1947), the judgment was concerned with “the offence of assisting the enemy with intent to do so. Steane had given a broadcast for the Nazis in order to save his family from being sent to concentration camps. The accused did not desire to help the Nazis and was found to be not guilty of the offence” (Elliot and Quinn n.d.). Criminal liability is also determined by the external and fault elements. The external element of the offense with the required fault is necessary to be committed by the person to be considered as a criminal liability. An issue of secondary liability might also arise if there is another individual who has involved the prime suspect in to committing the act, or if the individual has assisted another individual in commitment of a criminal act. The external element refers to the element that is not directly associated with the fault of the individual. The intent, knowledge and belief of the individual, in this case, are taken into consideration (Great Britain 2009). Thus it can be said that there are cases where an individual might be involved in a crime by indirectly assisting in the commitment of the act or by being influenced to act to it. The elements of criminal liability clearly reflect on the act as well as the mental status and intention of the individual that in combination are considered to present an individual who has committed a wrong act, as criminal liability. Solution 4: Strict liability crime as in English law, which is also known as absolute liability crime, refers to the responsibility of an individual for causing harm or injuries to anyone in the society, or for committing any act of crime, where the individual could be obtained as strictly liable for the act or the harm (Strict Liability 2014). No mens rea is required in the case of strict liability crimes. In other words, such acts of crimes do not require the individuals to have any particular intent of committing the acts. Hence the individual would be considered as liable and guilty for his wrong act regardless of his intent of doing so. It might be the case that an individual may not have a guilty mind, but still commits an act of crime. In such cases, strict liability crime would consider the individual as guilty of the act and hence call him strictly liable for the crime (LaMance 2014). Some of the examples of such crimes include (LaMance 2014): According to the laws of statutory rape, it is absolutely illegal to forcefully have sexual intercourse with any individual, particularly with someone who is a minor. In such cases, the individual would be held liable for the act even if he considers that his partner had consent in the act or if he finds it legal to commit. Hence such an act is regardless of the intent of the individual but owing to the law, the individual would be held as liable for a crime. Another strict liability crime is to sell alcohol to minors. Even if the minors have their own consent in drinking alcohol, it is a general law that minors cannot be sold alcohol. Hence any liquor shop or individual doing so would be held as strictly liable for a crime act. Offenses related to traffic are also considered as strict liability crimes. For example, an individual might receive a ticket for speeding his vehicle; even if his intention did not mean so or if he believed that his speed was in his control. The above are some examples of strict liability crimes where the intent of the offender is not taken into account. While the main advantage of the law is that it tries to prevent some of the fundamental crimes that human beings conduct, on the other hand it has some disadvantages. The most important of these is that it creates injustice for the offenders. Particularly because of the fact that these crimes are not true crimes, and hence their penalties are also very less, the injustice arises for offenders of these crimes against those who commit true crimes. Moreover it does not deter such crimes for occurring again, so its use is not evident. However, with a social stigma anyone marked with such crime may experience significant damage of his/her reputation in society or workplace that proves to be big disadvantage (Strict Liability n.d.). Conclusion: It can be concluded from the above study that criminal liability of an individual is decided upon by the law depending on various elements that are both internal and external to an individual. While on one hand, the combination of the act and the intent of the offender matter significantly towards considering an individual as a criminal; on the other hand, there are strict liability crime laws as well that are meant for the welfare of the society and hence are regardless of the intent of the offender, but yet they are considered as criminal offenders under the law. The role of the Supreme Court in the development of the legal system is highly significant with focus on the moral beliefs of the society, as well as its welfare. References Bell v Lever Brothers Ltd (n.d.) Legalmax. [Online]. Available at: http://www.legalmax.info/members2/conbook/bell_v_l.htm [Accessed 14 January 2014]. Elliot, C. and F. Quinn (n.d.) Criminal Law. Pearsoned. [Online]. Available at: http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/140828071X.pdf [Accessed 5 January 2014]. Gilly, T.A., Gilinskiy, Y. and V.A. Sergevnin (2009) The Ethics of Terrorism: Innovative Approaches from an International Perspective (17 Lectures). Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher. Grama, J. (2010) Legal Issues in Information Security. Massachusetts: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Great Britain (2009) Intoxication and Criminal Liability. Britain: The Stationery Office. LaMance, K. (2014) Strict Liability Crimes. Legalmatch. [Online]. Available at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/strict-liability-crimes.html [Accessed 7 January 2014]. Legal Positivism of Law (2012) Lawteacher. [Online]. Available at: http://www.lawteacher.net/jurisprudence/essays/legal-positivism-of-law.php [Accessed 3 January 2014]. Perell, P.M. (1987) Stare decisis and techniques of legal reasoning and legal argument. Legalresearch. [Online]. Available at: http://legalresearch.org/writing-analysis/stare-decisis-techniques/ [Accessed 4 January 2014]. Regina v. Dudley & Stephens: Morality, Murder and the Criminal (2009) Thenaturallawyer. [Online]. Available at: https://thenaturallawyer.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/regina-v-dudley-stephens-morality-murder-and-the-criminal-law/ [Accessed 14 January 2014]. Strict Liability (2014) Legal-dictionary. [Online]. Available at: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Strict+Liability [Accessed 7 January 2014]. Strict Liability (n.d.) E-lawresources. [Online]. Available at: http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Strict-liability.php [Accessed 14 January 2014]. Walters, I.H. (2011) No Sacred Place: Bad Faith, Lies, and Illusions (Google eBook). Indiana: iUniverse. Read More