Criminal Liability - Case Study Example

Criminal Liability Table of Contents Introduction 3 A General Perspective of Criminal Liability 3 Analysis of Donnie’s Criminal Liability 5 Conclusion 9 References 10 Introduction The criminal liability of Donnie can be identified with reference to the scenario where he decides upon reacquiring the bicycle which he once lent to his girlfriend, Serena after their relationship comes to an end. In order to get his bicycle back, Donnie ultimately decided to take his bicycle back with force without seeking any further permission from her (i.e. Serena). While forcefully taking back his bicycle, Donnie gets obstructed by Serena’s sister Verona. The turn of events then resulted causing fatal injuries to Verona, by Donnie in his temper, who died after two weeks, thereby defining Donnie’s criminal liability. However, it is worth mentioning in this regard that accusing or adjourning someone to have criminal liabilities, depend on various aspects which generally includes due concentration on the age of the accused, his/her intentions and his/her personal traits, in case it signifies any kind of disability. Emphasising on this notion, the discussion henceforth will intend to develop a general perspective regarding criminal liability of any person, rendering specific ideas concerning the factors which should be considered when accusing someone as a legal offender. The idea generated through the analysis of criminal liability and its defining factors, an analysis of Donnie’s criminal liability will also be portrayed in the discussion. A General Perspective of Criminal Liability The perception of criminal liability is often described as the guilt to perform such acts which apparently harms the well-being of any individual either psychologically or physically along with inhibiting the interests of the society by a large extent. The notion of criminal liability principally arises due to the breach of a defined code of law with the perpetration of any sort of offensive behaviour which is against the defined codes (Sistare, 1989). It has been viewed that the fundamental assumption in relation to criminal activity signifies the presence of both physical as well as psychological factors when committing the offense to treat the offender as a criminal (RSC, n.d.). Furthermore, a particular individual who commits an unlawful act is considered to be criminally liable, provided the person performs an activity which is against the legal codes being influenced by the factors such as negligence, intention to injure or damage and recklessness (USIP, n.d.). It is worth mentioning in this context that criminal liability can be classified under three distinctive concepts, namely, culpability, capacity, and responsibility. Under the classification of culpability, the crime is believed to be committed purposefully, where the wrong doer is found to be completely aware of the consequences. Similarly, capacity intends to verify the age or the mental state of the criminal which impose a strong influence towards committing such acts. However, responsibility intends to elaborate on the willingness of the criminal to conduct such illegal act presuming that he was not forced by any material factors, such as money, threat or similar other elements. It is worth mentioning in this regard that the criminal liability must be justified under all the three concepts to verify a “corpus delicti rule” (NCWC, 2003). A criminal offense can also be committed by a person acting recklessly i.e. not caring at all about the effects or consequences of the unlawful activities performed by them. Furthermore, by law, in the case of any criminal liability offence, the accused person should have performed any kind of voluntary or involuntary physical activity/activities. The idea of voluntary physical action denotes the fact that the happening or rather the execution of the offensive act was under the control of the accused and thereby deliberating that the person had disregarded his/her minimum responsibility to control their intention of damage. Conversely, the involuntary physical activities refer to those acts which are beyond the control of the accused person (International Human Rights Law Group, 2000). In relation to criminal law, there are majorly five different principles or theories of criminal liability. The various principles of criminal liability include the principle of ‘Actus Reus’, ‘Concurrence’, ‘Resulting Harm’, ‘Mens Rea’ and ‘Causation’. In this context, the principle of ‘Actus Reus’ is considered to be a physical constituent of crime which comprises several factors comprising of involuntariness, possession, thoughts and conditions. The principle of ‘Mens Rea’ refers to the psychological element of crime which contains the aspects including confessions, strict liability and constructive intent among others. The principle of ‘Concurrence’ further states that there are particular crimes which compulsorily accompany the psychological qualities possessed by the accused as well as the act conducted. Similarly, the principle of ‘Causation’ denotes the enquiry in order to judge the degree of harm or damage caused due to the execution of the unlawful conduct to any individual or group or the society at large. This principle consists of numerous factors which include actual, proximate or legal causes among others. Contextually, the principle of ‘Resulting Harm’ refers to legitimate influential decisions which play an imperative role in the accusations of the victims by a significant level (Derbyshire, 2010). Analysis of Donnie’s Criminal Liability After acquiring a brief idea about the perception, nature and the principles of criminal liability, the activity which was performed by Donnie, to forcefully take away his bicycle once lent to his girlfriend Serena, can be related with the facet of involuntary physical acts. Arguably, this similar concept can be related with the case of Donnie. When Donnie was on a mode of running away from Serena’s home along with his bicycle, he met with Verona (Serena’s sister) who deliberately obstructed him from escaping as she was not aware of the fact that the bicycle in reality belonged to Donnie, thereby exhibiting a suspect of theft. In her statement to the police, Verona stated that Donnie actually “went crazy” losing his mental state and attacked ferociously with a sharp screw-driver which was lying on a nearby window. On the basis of the aforementioned scenario, it can be stated that Donnie performed a legal offense by attacking Verona which ultimately led her towards death as a consequence of an involuntary act relating with criminal law. Hence, it can be stated that the offensive act performed by Donnie led to both physical and psychological harm to Verona and thereby Donnie can be accused as the offender and Verona, on the other hand, can be treated as the victim. It is in this context that the even suffices the definition of a criminal conduct which in turn terms it appropriate to accuse Donnie for criminal liabilities. Furthermore, it must also be taken into concern that attacking Verona was not the intention of Donnie. The chief intention of Donnie was to get back his bicycle which he had once lent to his former girlfriend, Serena. The attack by Donnie to Verona can also be related with the factor of recklessness. In relation to the facet of criminal activity, it has been observed in the early discussion that the law related with criminal offences must satisfy certain crucial factors while confirming a person to be guilty of a crime. In this regard, Donnie can be regarded as a person to be guilty of crime as he had performed a criminal activity on the basis of involuntary act and recklessness. Donnie’s criminal liability can also be related with one of the principles of criminal liability i.e. ‘Actus Reus’. This principle states that an individual commits criminal offence either voluntarily or involuntarily causing serious damages or harm to the victim, which in this case can be identified as Verona. In relation to the case, Donnie satisfied the elements of the principles of ‘Actus Reus’ by attacking Verona dangerously with a screw-driver which eventually led her towards death and thus performed an act of felony. After being arrested, Donnie was sent for psychiatric assessment and diagnosed with a serious mental disorder that prevented him from controlling his violent rages which were likely to cause further criminal activities. Thus, collectively, it can be stated that Donnie’s criminal liability is based upon several factors which include intention, recklessness and involuntary physical activities. However, considering the results of Donnie’s medical test which was conducted following his arrest after Verona’s death, it can be argued that a certain percentage of reluctance should be offered while documenting the charges brought against the criminal activity. It is in this context that the medical test reported Donnie to suffer from ‘a serious mental disorder’ where it can be assumed that he was unable to control his temper when he was obstructed by Verona from reacquiring back his bicycle. Therefore, it might not be quite appropriate to state that Donnie was in his complete consciousness when the criminal activity was conducted owing to which his liability for the harm caused on Verona can be relaxed to a certain percentage. To be specific, to confine a person liable for any criminal conduct, the circumstances as well as the mental state of both the victim and the wrong doer need to be verified under certain principles. These general principles apparently state that the crime must be committed with complete consciousness with a motive where the victim is directly associated. Furthermore, it is in this context that relaxation to these attributes is quite likely to result in a degree of respite in terms of the legal proceedings against the accused. It is worth mentioning in this regard that Verona was certainly not the direct motive of the crime though she became to be a victim. On the similar context, owing to the facts stating that the event had been influenced by the mental disorder of Donnie to a higher extent, the accused (i.e. Donnie) can plea for a certain percentage of relaxation in terms of the legal proceedings. Conclusion From a generalised perspective, the aspect of criminal liability normally takes place whenever human right(s) is violated or dishonoured. An individual who performs any type of criminal activity is considered to be criminally liable committing an illicit act with apparent implications of the factors such as negligence, recklessness and intentional damage. The criminally responsible person is usually convicted for performing the criminal act and most significantly penalties can be imposed upon the convicted or the accused person. Contextually, the criminal act which was performed by Donnie can be considered to be a serious offence as it caused major harm to Verona causing her mental as well as physical harm, ultimately leading towards her death. It was identified in this regard that Donnie committed the criminal activity on the basis of involuntary act and recklessness. His sole intention was not to cause serious damage to Verona; rather, his intention was to get back his bicycle from his girlfriend Serena. Thus, it can be stated that Donnie can be found as a guilty of crime as he has evidently performed an involuntary criminal activity and therefore should be convicted with the charge of criminal liability. References Derbyshire, J., 2010. The Principle of Actus Reus. Principles of Criminal Liability. [Online] Available at: http://www.drtomoconnor.com/3010/3010lect02.htm [Accessed August 08, 2012]. RSC, No Date. The Difference between Criminal and Civil Liability. Criminal Activity. [Online] Available at: http://www.rsc.org/images/2_Difference_tcm18-17644.pdf [Accessed August 08, 2012]. International Human Rights Law Group, 2000. Principles of Criminal Responsibility. Site. [Online] Available at: http://www.globalrights.org/site/DocServer/Cambodia_Ch6.pdf?docID=192 [Accessed August 08, 2012]. NCWC, 2003. Principles of Criminal Liability. Faculty. [Online] Available at: http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/293/293lect03.htm [Accessed August 08, 2012]. Sistare, C. T., 1989. Responsibility and Criminal Liability. Springer. USIP, No Date. Article 15: Criminal Offense. Files. [Online] Available at: http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part1Section7.pdf [Accessed August 08, 2012]. Read More