The Legal Responsibility of an Individual - Essay Example

Criminal liability case al affiliation In the context of criminal law, criminal liability constitutes the legal responsibility of an individual or a group of people to an act or omission. The act or omission in this sense implies any activity that injures another party or negatively affects the course of a particular action, subjects a corporation or individual to disrepute. The credibility of a criminal liability lawsuit depends on the ability of the complainant to effectively serve the court with sufficient information to justify negligence of duty on the part of the accused, or a proximate cause of the failure to some harm or injury1. On the other hand, criminal liability may degenerate directly from the acts that constitute a crime. For instance, a motorist who runs a street light and hits a pedestrian at a zebra crossing is liable for a lawsuit2. There are several forms of liability including tort liability, statutory, joint, or civil liabilities. This paper provides an exposition of Damien’s criminal liability relating to the death of the young Victoria, the father, and Cheryl. In any country, the supreme law acts as the standard benchmark of crime. In essence, individuals who act in contravention of the stipulation of the constitution become liable for prosecution. Only in special conditions do individuals reserve immunity of the law. Cases of commitment of crime as a result of mental illness often attract fewer punitive arbitrations. The Dicey’s theory provides a basic consideration of the supreme law. It asserts that no one should be subjected to punishment unless the law justifies it3. This assertion grants the supreme law hegemony over arbitrary power. Secondly, Dicey posits that no progressive constitution provides room for preferential treatment of individuals irrespective of their statuses. Damien faces several counts of criminal liabilities. In the onset, the act of taking away the life of anybody irrespective of their health conditions amounts to murder case. Without subjecting the mental orientation of Damien to any introspection, it is outright that he murdered Michael and Cheryl. In the case of Victoria’s death, fair reasoning never resulted in hostile treatments4. It is biased reasoning to hold him accountable for Victoria’s death. However, his case concerning Victoria’s death is complicated when he prevents Michael from reporting the matter to the police. It is legally binding on an aggrieved party and the aggressor to access justice from legal apparatus at any time of disagreement. The confrontation with Damien resulting in the death of Michael amounts to proximate liability5. In essence, it is perceivable that the confrontational approach of Michael resulted from the death of his daughter. If in case Damien too agonized the unprecedented death of the daughter, he acted irrationally to confront the aggrieved dad. He already had a stake in the death of Victoria and since he had a primary responsibility to ensure Victoria’s safety. He had failed in his assigned task and could only have acted rationally by consoling Michael6. In legal context, it is conceivable that attempts to avoid justice prove guilt. The revelation that Damien prevented Victoria’s father from legal authority casts aspersions on his was innocence of Victoria’s death. Furthermore, by accepting to take care of, even though, no legal contract was signed, Damien assumed the roles of a guardian. It is the legal responsibility of parents to ensure that those under their care are free from danger. Damien, oblivious of the implications of the injury, failed to keep constant check on the sleeping child. This act of negligence exposes Damien to the law. Damien as an adult was aware that concrete is a hard material, and Victoria could have injured the head from inside. He, therefore, had the responsibility to take her to the hospital, which he ignored. Emotions and ignorance bear no defense in law. It is acceptable that the pain of losing a loved daughter could have prompted Michael to behave unsoundly; however, Michael confronted the already grieving Michael. This is conceivably an assault which again contributed to murder when he drowned the unconscious body of Michael and the dead daughter to conceal evidence of murder. It is acceptable that psychological illnesses result in misjudgment. However, in a case of actual mental problem the perpetrator should remain unalarmed by the repercussions of their acts. It is admissible that mental tests revealed that Michael was not in a good state of mind to stand a trial for murder. Nonetheless, the fact that he got alarmed by the unconscious state of Michael and the death of Victoria implies his guilt. Damien consciously realized his possible implication in a murder probe and disposed off the bodies of the two for safety. In essence, it remains legally speculative whether the mental disorder diagnosed in Damien resulted in his murderous acts or otherwise the murderous acts resulted in the mental disorder7. If the former is true, Damien is liable for the murder of Michael. Furthermore, an attempt to conceal evidence of the crime exposes Damien as a rational criminal who is aware of the impacts of the law and its due process. In a case example of R.v Pritchard (1836), the defendant was deaf and dumb. The presiding judge Alderson set out mechanisms to determine the inability of the defendant to plead due to his condition. The jury was directed to interrogate three conditions of the defendant to allow effective proceedings. In the case of Damien, psychiatric tests revealed his mental sickness but this alone could justify lack of criminal liability. Insanity claims do not free murderers from a second-degree murder liability. In criminal jurisprudence, it is assumable that even when criminals are not in the right state of mind, they are aware of crime. This awareness of crime in illness results to plea of guilty but mentally ill. Guilty but mentally ill criminals are liable for second-degree murder lawsuit. However, mental illness that meets insanity threshold is permissible for leniency. A court session by the European court sitting on 13th May 2003 in arbitration of a murder probe involving an allegedly insane assailant is a case example of a court process involving mentally ill defendants. In this case, the criminal was held in custody awaiting psychiatric report. The reports revealed he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia8. After elaborate court sessions, the court ruled that the criminal was unfit to plead for murder9. It was decided that he be detained in hospital for treatment since he could not be held liable for murder. In the case of Michael and Damien, by virtue of having left the kid under Damien’s care on several other occasions and found her safe, it is speculative to believe that he was ill as at the time of the murder. This implies that Damien is liable for a second-degree murder case unless repeated psychiatric tests prove otherwise. Sustenance of a criminal liability depends on the available information about the mental illness of accused and its relevance to the offense in question. Responsibility for criminal offense results from a conscious engagement of an individual in crime. Section 1(1) mental health act amended section 1(2) mental Health Act 1983 of the English constitution define mental disorder as any disorder or disability of the mind that result in irrational or unconscious actions10. Section 1(3) mental health act restricts the exploitation of mental illness to protect promiscuity or other immoral acts. According to the legal provisions every individual with the age of discretion, is, presumed by law to be sane accountable for his actions. The onus is on the resistance to establishing insanity at the time of the offense on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, unless there is contrary statutory authority, the prosecution has to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, when particular issues arise no forces are involved that affect sanity11. The paranoia that besets Damien after the death of Michael gives an evidential link between his stability of mind before the occurrence of the deaths.in this sense, unless the mental diagnosis gives the undisputable timeline in which the diagnosed mental problem began, Damien is liable for the death of Cheryl and Michael12. Mental illnesses undeniably disrupt a persons thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning. Serious mental illnesses include major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder. It is legally admissible that some mentally ill individuals experience cognitive inability to make rational decisions to prevent criminal offenses. It is important to balance between criminal justice and public security. The American judicial system practice sentences of guilty but mentally ill. This facilitates the achievement of justice for both the complainant and the defendant13. Liability of ‘guilty but mentally ill’ subjects the accused to mental rehabilitation as part of the detention for the criminal act. This form of liability achieves congruence between public security and the criminal’s state of mind. Taking such verdict into consideration, even though Damien was later diagnosed with mental illness, granting amnesty would imply collaboration with crime on the side of the law enforcement agency. The neutrality of any law provides for justice to all the parties estranged in a lawsuit14. The subjection of criminals to punishment ought to be overly deterrent. It could be possible that other mentally ill but conscious individuals would exploit their situations to commit more criminal acts. The case of Damien involvement in the death of Michael and Cheryl predisposes him to the due process of the law. The death of Victoria degenerated purely from the accident; Damien bears no legal responsibility since anyone is predisposed to accidents15. “Mental illness” bears varying connotations in a legal and psychological sense. In a psychological sense, a person must meet the criteria for a disorder listed in Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders to qualify for mental disability. In a legal context, a person must be insane based on four pre-determined tests of insanity. Notably, volition and responsibility determine whether and how much punishment an offender should receive.in the case of Damien, unless evidence pointed to the mental disorder diagnosed in previous tests. He has legal liability for the murder of Michael and Cheryl16. In a case example; Rv Henesy (1989) court appeal, the appellant, had been arrested driving a stolen car but pleaded to be diabetic and that the wife had just left him17. However, the jury determined that the appropriate prayer for leniency would have been insanity and not diabetes. This implies that if sufficient evidence supported the fact that Damien was surely insane as at the time of the murder, he bears no criminal liability18. In conclusion, Damien faces several counts of criminal liability. He has a primary link with the death of Michael and Cheryl. On the other hand, the death of Victoria could have been avoided if he took the responsibility to take her to hospital or otherwise notified the father19. This non-responsiveness to the plight of Victoria implicates Damien on a negligent of responsibility case. Leniency is granted by any constitution on criminals diagnosed with mental sickness that affect their quality of judgment however, such provisions must be consistent with available evidence on the mental disorder and the implications of such leniency n the security of the public. A more neutral approach to Damien’s criminal liability should take into account his mental condition without compromising the security of the public20. This implies that Damien is liable on the basis of “guilty mentally ill.” The first guidelines for a test of insanity in English courts were based on the 1843 trial of Daniel M’Naghten in England. The M’Nagthen rules created during this trial established that every person is of “sound” mind unless they can prove otherwise. To prove an insanity defense “If only at the time of committing the act, Damien was acting under such a defect of reason, as not to know the nature of the act he was involved in. In this light, if he did know what he was doing hence he reserves non-criminal liability. Bibliography Aneshensel, Phelan, Bierman. Handbook of the sociology of mental Health. (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012). Bailis, Darley, Waxman, Robinson. Community standards of criminal liability and the insanity defense. Law and Human Behavior. (425-446, 1995). Boston, Manville. Prisoners’ self-help litigation manual. (Oxford: Oceana, 2010) Chen, Ke. Criminal law and criminal procedure law in the People’s Republic of China: Commentary and legislation (2013) Elliot. The rules of insanity: Moral Responsibility and The Mentally ill offender. Albany, NY: state Unv. of New York Press).Criminal Justice in action: The core. (Belmont, C.A: Thomas Wardsworth Inc, 2013). Gardner, Anderson. Criminal law, (Belmont, CA: Wordsworth Learning Inc 2012). Great Britain. Mental Health Act 2007: Chapter 12. (London: Stationery Office 2007) Reed, Bohlander, Wake. General defenses in criminal law: Domestic and comparative perspectives (2014). Loughnan. Manifest Madness: Mental Incapacity in the Criminal Law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012). Moore. Current trends in policing and the mentally ill in Europe: a review of the literature. Police Practice and Research. doi:10.1080/15614261003701756 (2010) Probation and mental illness. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology. doi:10.1080/14789949.2012.704640 (2012). Purpura, Criminal justice: An introduction. (Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann 1996) Parry, American Bar Association,Criminal mental health and disability law, evidence and testimony: A comprehensive reference Manual for lawyers judges and criminal justice professionals, (Chicago: Commission on mental and physical Disability law 2009) Pallock, Ethical Dilemmas and decision in criminal justice, Australia: (Wordsworth Cengage Learning 2009). Rodensky, The Crime in Mind: Criminal Responsibility and the Victorian Novel. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).  Robinson. Law without justice: Why Criminal Law Doesn’t Give people what they deserve. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). Torrey, E.F. National Alliance for the mentally ill (US) & public citizen health research group. Criminalizing the seriously mentally ill: The abuse of jails as mental hospitals, a joint report of the national alliance for the mentally and pubic citizen health (2002) Levy and Nachshon, D & Carmi, A. Psychiatry and the law. Tel Aviv, Israel: Yozmot Pub. (2002) Zechmeister, Kilian, McDaid. Is it worth investing in mental health promotion and prevention of mental illness? A systematic review of the evidence from economic evaluations. BMC Public Health. (2008). Read More