The Principle of Correspondence in Criminal Law - Essay Example

The Principle of Correspondence in Criminal Law Principle of Correspondence in Criminal Law Introduction Crime, as defined by the famous English jurist called Blackstone, refers to an act that either is carried out or omitted that leads to a violation of existing laws. In general, a crime is any act carried out in violation of the law. Criminal law is defined as the branch of law that determines which actions are criminal and assigns punishment for these crimes. Criminal law aims to enhance coexistence of individuals within a society by defining and identifying wrong actions, establishing an approach to determine innocence or guilt and choosing a suitable penalty or treatment following the conviction of a crime.1 Criminal law exists to offer protection to society members while going about their day to day activities. As such, criminal law protects people against three forms of harm; harm inflicted by others, harm inflicted by one’s own self and those arising from disregard of societal norms. 2 Criminal law can be viewed from two perspectives; substantive criminal law and procedural criminal law. Substantive criminal law identifies which acts constitute a crime and assigns the appropriate form of punishment while procedural criminal law outlines the steps by which a criminal is punished. The Principle of Correspondence In criminal law, for an accused person to be found culpable, he or she is obliged to have indeed committed an unlawful act (actus reus) and must have acquired the mental state (mens rea) that propelled him to perform an illegal act. Actus reus is derived from Latin and means “guilty act” whereas mens rea means “guilty mind”. Under actus reus, the guilty act referred to could either be the commission or omission of an act that then leads to the violation of existing laws. Consider a case where a person, willingly and knowingly, drives over the speed limit. Here, the act of over speeding is done with total disregard to the existing law. An example of an omission of an act is a case where after adopting a pet, a person fails to care for and feed it thus leading to its demise. The crime in this case arises from the failure to act.3 In many occasions, a person is required to have had the necessary “mental state” while committing a crime for him or her to be found guilty of an offence. Often, mens rea refers to the intention to commit a crime. Some crimes, however, are done by unknowingly. Mens rea therefore may refer to other states of mind such as criminal negligence, recklessness or willful blindness. Intention refers to the situation where a person knowingly understands that their actions go against the rule of law and yet they continue with the guilty act. Willful blindness is shown where a person is aware of the possibility of wrongdoing but chooses to pursue with the offense. Criminal negligence refers to the case where an individual is not conscious of the consequences of his or her actions although reason would dictate that they should have. It should be noted that a person’s unawareness of the existing laws does not excuse them in the event that harm is inflicted as a result of their actions. They are considered to be in the proper state of mind while committing the offence.4 Under the principle of correspondence, it is expected that there exists some harmony between the actus reus and the mens rea. There should be mens rea in the form of intention, recklessness or negligence in connection with the occurrence of actus reus for a person to be found accountable of having committed a felony. The Latin maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” meaning that a man’s actions only make him guilty if his mind is also guilty,5 has been a basic rule of criminal law. Therefore, the principle of correspondence states that there must exist the guilty state of mind in the commission of an illegal act for someone to be held liable as having committed the crime. According to the principle of correspondence, it should not only be established that the defendant was to fault for the occurrence of the crime but that he or she had intent and/or knowledge of it. Therefore, if a person is charged as having inflicted injury to someone, then the principle of correspondence would dictate that, for him or her to be found guilty of having done so, it should be established whether he or she had the intent or was reckless during the occurrence of that crime. In other words, the conduct element, the illegal act, must correspond to the fault element, the intention or negligence that led to the occurrence of the crime. It is then assumed that every element led to the occurrence of the crime. The correlation between the wrongful act and the intent or negligence is fundamental in criminal law since it always strives to uphold the principle of correspondence. The principle also dictates that criminal liability is established for a given crime only when a relative correspondence is found to exist between the mens rea and the actus reus. There is a clear distinction between the principle of correspondence and the principle of fair labeling despite the fact that the latter is derived from the former. The principle of fair labeling aims to see that the differences between the various kinds of crimes and degrees of illegal acts are signaled by law and that crimes are labeled so as to fairly portray the magnitude of wrong doing. As such, the essence and magnitude of wrong doing are conveyed. Thus, only when harmony exists between the mens rea and actus reus, can the principle of fair labeling is achieved.6 Bright mentions that the principle of correspondence is often disregarded by criminal law and that this constitutes a significant oversight. He also states that the correspondence principle benefits from resounding petitions from its proponents and as such due consideration should be given to it in criminal law. One reason he attributes to this neglect is that sceptics of the principle have failed to understand its essence and worth.7 Others who oppose the principle argue that any person who carries out an act having foreseen that the act will bring harm from his or her actions should be held liable irrespective of whether or not he or she meant it. A defendant can be held liable for more harm than was intended or foreseen by him or her as long as it is comparable to the harm he or she foresaw. Deviation from the Principle of Correspondence Sometimes, criminal law does not necessarily uphold the principle of correspondence. In some cases, defendants are held liable for crimes even when no relationship has been established between the mens rea and the actus reus. These types of offences where the burden of proof is satisfied on the basis of men rea of a minor offence than is charged are referred to as constructive crimes. Here, the intention to cause any form of harm is taken as the mens rea of the crime. There is no need to demonstrate that there was intention to commit the crime as long as it has been committed. Some offences are considered to be so comprehensively defined that it is only necessary to show intent in certain aspects of actus reus.8 Proponents of the correspondence principle feel that constructive liability should be rejected. They argue that constructive liability is too dependent on luck and therefore turns criminal law into a “game of chance.” Take a case where a defendant, Mario, having foreseen little harm, strikes another, David, who falls and incurs a serious injury as a result of hitting his head on the pavement. Here, Mario should not be held liable for such an accidental outcome that was deemed to be beyond his control. There exists another angle of thought that disregards strict compliance to the correspondence principle while supporting instances under constructive crime. An example of this is seen where a person in the act of commissioning a crime, crosses a moral boundary and as such is deemed to be acting on a different course of action unlike those who are acting as per the law. Any outcomes resulting from his actions are not considered “accidental.” By deciding to carry out the offence, the defendant is considered to be in control of his own luck and is therefore answerable for the outcomes.9 In the event that ulterior intent is necessary, it becomes clear that negligence and/or recklessness are not adequate. Where harm is inflicted with malicious intent, proof that the defendant portrayed recklessness or neglect would not be sufficient even if the serious harm was caused. In most cases, only the establishment of mens rea is necessary even without there being any ulterior intent.10 The prerequisites for the correspondence principle, actus reus and mens rea, are not deemed necessary for every offense. To be specific, many crimes can lack mens rea; these are referred to as crimes of strict liability. It can also be stated that these two prerequisites differ greatly with various crimes. In the case of the attempt of an offence, it must be shown that intent or recklessness was present in the actions of the defendant. Both prerequisites are seen to vary depending on the crime and therefore require a more precise definition for the two is necessary in relation to the offences. It has often been argued that the two prerequisites are misleading for two major reasons. The first reason is that the Latin maxim implies that in the event that the harm is brought about by the defendant being in a certain state of mind, criminal liability would be inevitable. However, this is not always the case. A defendant that has committed a crime may in some cases evade criminal liability if he has a solid defense such as self-defense. In another scenario, the defendant may instead face a lesser charge where he has a partial defense. These defenses do not necessarily apply under the correspondence principle. It could be argued that, in reality, there are three components to a crime; mens rea, actus reus and lack of a solid defense.11 Another reason that casts doubt on the interpretation of the two prerequisites is that the two terms have for a long time evolved in meaning to suit the validity of the law. For instance, a crime can be said to have mens rea if the defendant does not beforehand regard the risks involved in the outcome. Under this construction, criminal law seems to advocate for the punishment of those who are inflicting harm. The degree of punishment administered varies proportionately to the level of blame attached and the level of harm they have inflicted. Consider a first case where a defendant having the mens rea of a particular offense commits the actus reus of the offense and the resulting outcome is an unintended one. In one perspective, it can be argued that the result is unintended although the intent to cause the offense was established and therefore the defendant is guilty of having committed a crime. Now consider a second case where a defendant having the mens rea of a certain offense against a second partu, commits the actus reus of the same offense and as a result, a third party is seriously harmed due to the offense. In this case, the degree of illegality of the offense is considered the same irrespective of who was hurt. The principle applied in this case is referred to as the dogma of ‘transferred malice: This doctrine however only applies where principle of correspondence applies. 12 In most cases, people are blamed for their conduct due to the state of their mind during the commissioning of an offense. As a result, knowing culprits are often held liable for damages arising from their actions whereas people who accidentally cause harm to others are not necessarily blamed for the resulting harm even if another party sustains serious harm as a result of the act. Therefore, as in most cases, the presence or absence of a particular mental state plays a vital role in determining whether someone is to be held liable over the occurrence of harm due to his or her actions, whether intentional or accidental. However, if the person fails to act with cognitive mens rea, he or she could be held liable for the harm arising from their actions. For instance, if a person, Vincent, knowingly pushes Samuel in front of a moving vehicle and as a result the latter is seriously hurt, blame can be placed on Vincent and thus a form of punishment could follow. If however Vincent tripped and while trying to balance or cushion his land he accidentally pushed Samuel in front of an oncoming vehicle, Vincent could easily escape punishments with the incident being labeled an accident. Now consider a case where Vincent, in a drunken stupor, trips and pushes Samuel onto the path of an oncoming vehicle. Vincent could be Blamed and punished for having being in the avoidable state that resulted in the unfortunate event. Under this even, the principle of correspondence does not necessarily apply under all the three instances. It could also be seen that not all persons acting with cognitive mens rea can be blamed in the occurrence of harm. Where the defendant has a justified reason or excuse for having caused harm, it is uncertain that such a person would be held liable. For instance, if Samuel, mentioned in the above case, was about to inflict harm on Vincent and as a result was pushed in front of an oncoming vehicle, Vincent could claim that he was acting in defense and as such, he would not be liable for any outcome of his actions. Criminal law however seeks to lay blame on those who are guilty of an offense. The idea of “blameworthiness” however has been argued as being too amorphous. To avoid this mistake, blame could refer to a case where a defendant has cognitive mens rea and lacks an appropriate defense.13 Conclusion The principle of correspondence dictates that a defendant is shown to be guilty of a crime when he is confirmed to have committed an unlawful offense while being so in a certain state of mind. Ideally, the requirement that the defendant’s actions should correspond to his state of mind should be met before a person is convicted of a crime to ensure that intent was truly included in the defendant’s actions. The requirement of correspondence not only bars responsibility when the mens rea and the actus reus are not in alignment, but rather prevents criminal liability when the action is not as a result of the mental state of the defendant. This bring out a rather appealing ethical principle that a person’s state of mind plays a huge role in his bearing the responsibility for his or her actions only if the action is brought about by that state of mind. 14 The correspondence principle forms part of the fundamental foundational principles that justify the punishing of a defendant based on the state of their minds. In addition, penalties assigned to certain crimes could also be gauged according to the physical state of the defendant at the moments before and during the commissioning of a crime. In conclusion, criminal law should strive to uphold this principle given the rationality it adds to criminal law as a whole. Read More