Criminal Law and Violation of Public Interest - Assignment Example

In order to discuss John’s criminal liability in the given case study, it is imperative to begin by explaining the meaning of criminal law as a way of gaining a clear understanding of the whole concept. According to the online HG.org worldwide directories (n.d), “criminal law which is often called penal law, involves prosecution by the government of a person for an act that has been classified as a crime.” On the other hand, a crime is further defined as, “any act or (commission of an act) in violation of a public law forbidding it.” It is mainly concerned with crimes that are committed against public authority and it often goes against the interests of the public at large the reason why the state would need to persecute such perpetrators of criminal offences. Many countries do have statutory regulations that allow the courts to try and sentence criminals upon conviction. In this regard, theft or property, felony as well as treason for instance fall under criminal law as well as other cases that endanger human life and the state as a whole. It can be noted that in every nation, the criminal law is specifically designed to deter the criminals from committing crimes that disrupt public order and security. A critical analysis of the case study shows that John violates the public interest in mainly two ways that can be categorised as criminal activities. Driving without a valid licence is a criminal offence as it endangers the lives of the general public and he deliberately steals from unsuspecting people. In many countries if not all, theft is classified as a criminal law. Theft can be loosely referred to as taking without permission or stealing other people’s property. Theft comes in many different forms that include fraud, larceny, and embezzlement among other different forms. This essay seeks to critically analyse some of the offences committed by John and their magnitude to warranty arrest and ultimately sentencing upon conviction. First and fore most, John fraudulently obtains his public service vehicle (PSV) licence after he failed the test. Fraud is a criminal case by any standard especially with the intent of misrepresenting yourself to gain unfair advantage of getting a job without proper requirements. Obtaining a fake licence by hook and crook is pure violation of the law which can not be taken lightly under whatever circumstance. Having failed the test, he decides to proceed and obtain a fake driver’s licence with full knowledge of the likely consequences hence it can be said that he is liable for a criminal offence to a larger extent. His action is deliberate and it shows that he carefully planned with his friend Nick to forge the documents in order to pass the refresher course in driving which ultimately puts the life of other people in danger. Whilst John is taking advantage that his employers as well as the general public are not aware that he is driving without a valid licence, his action can be classified as criminal by any standard as it endangers the lives of the public who use public transport. John’s action of driving without a valid licence threatens the safety of the general public who use public transport. Certain laws which prohibit people to drive without licences are specifically designed to protect the interests of the public hence the deliberate violation of this law is treated as a criminal offence. Indeed, driving of public transport without a valid licence exposes innocent lives to risk which is against the law of the land. It can as well be noted John has been committing a criminal offence f stealing from the unsuspecting elderly people who are supposed to enjoy a 20 % discount but instead, he just collects the full fare and keeps the difference while the ticket indicates a lesser amount. This is widely regarded as embezzlement which constitutes a criminal law. As per their company law and regulations, all the cash is supposed to go into the cash box but John is at times seen using some of the money which is glaring violation of the company policy. John’s actions show that he engages in well calculated daylight theft with intent and purpose to unfairly gain from innocent people and this is totally against the public interest. Indeed, a 20 % discount on fares that is offered to the elderly is a noble gesture meant for social responsibility by the company but John takes advantage of this gesture and decides to unfairly enrich himself at the expense of the intended beneficiaries. Theft with intent to benefit yourself is always seen as a criminal offence which warranties persecution in a bid to deter the offenders from engaging in such behaviour. Such cases of theft are likely to cause social unrest and disturb stability in the society, the reason why the state is there to protect the citizens. It can also be seen that when John is technically off duty on Saturdays, he would offer tickets to unsuspecting people who in fact would be happy about the unscheduled trip due to transport problems on that route. However, he keeps all the money and returns the bus to the company. This is theft and is a criminal offence. Regardless of the unfortunate incident when his activities are discovered after failing to return the £5 he had taken, there is glaring evidence in the case study to believe that John has been engaging in criminal activities even before joining the company and continues doing that after joining it. It can also be seen that John does not believe in the principle of fairness since he is mainly concerned with benefitting out of every situation. After closely reading the given case study, it can be noted that such activities by John are against the public interest by any standard. They are mainly driven by greediness where he wants to benefit unfairly through engaging in corrupt activities. Against this background, it can be noted that there is need to protect the citizens from such Criminal law is often considered as the most effective technique that can be used to combat certain wrongful acts of conduct according to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Criminal offences often cause a public outcry hence the need to put measures that attempt to discourage them. Punitive sentences can be very effective in minimising the impacts of criminal cases. According to the fifth circuit blog (n.d), “the modern, generic, and broad definition of the entire phrase “theft offense (including receipt of stolen property)” is taking of property or an exercise of control over property without consent with the criminal intent to deprive the owner of rights and benefits of ownership, even if such deprivation is less than total or permanent (http://circuit5.blogspot.com/2007/12/court-adopts-generic-definition-of.html). Unlawful taking of something disadvantages the rightful owner. However, a close analysis of the mentioned case above in view of the generic definition highlighted in the court interpretation of the phrase “theft offense,” it can be noted that it is a criminal offence to deprive the owner his right to his property. In other words, it is criminal to take something without the owner’s consent, be it on temporary basis or otherwise. In this case John is taking the money from the company which can be equated to property without consent. Emphasis is mostly on the need to safeguard other people’s belongings. Any form of action that translates into the deprivation of the owner’s right to his property in broad terms and even his smaller belongings is categorised as criminal in nature which warrantees a sentence for a certain term of months which however, may be wholly suspended in certain circumstances. Accordingly, the generic definition of theft offense is often broadly used, though in some instances it may not include the exhaustive list of all crimes deemed to constitute the category of theft. Therefore, the broad interpretation of the generic definition often leads to the conclusion that even minor cases with the intent of temporarily depriving the owner of his property rights constitute a criminal offense. In this case, John is taking money with the intention of returning it at times but it still can be categorised as a criminal offense regardless of the action being seen as trivial therefore minor and less important like other big crimes such as felony. Indeed, in this generic definition of theft, the key term used is property which is all encompassing but it can as well be noted that taking other people’s belongings without consent regardless of the size constitutes a criminal offense. Ray Moses (2008) quotes the French Philosopher, Voltaire who in his essay on Manners in 1756 said, "All men have equal rights to liberty, to their property, and to the protection of laws." He further argues that the criminal law has since expanded and grown in its role as a protector of private property. In this case, it can be argued that property right is an all encompassing term which includes personal belongings ranging from small items to money. Most governments give priority to property rights as a way of safeguarding the individuals’ belongings which broadly defines their life. In attempting to protect these rights to property, criminal laws were promulgated that put more emphasis on rights against any form of theft or intrusion that may result in the loss of that property or deprivation of the owner to enjoy his right to what he is entitled to own. Thus, Moses (2008) posits that, “criminal laws protecting property have been used as a device to keep mans greed and avarice in check and to provide the property-owning public with a feeling of security.” Various interpretations of theft laws with reference to property rights allude to the effect that prevention of property is at the core of court proceedings. Each country has laws that are primarily designed to protect the citizens from loosing their hard earned money to fraudsters who may decide to steal from the unsuspecting people. Each human being is entitled to be protected by the law of the land as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. An act of deliberately defrauding another person with the sole aim of reaping undeserved gains is treated as an offence and the person who would have violated the rights of another individual to own something would be liable for a criminal offence as prescribed by the law. In view of the above argument, it can be noted that theft laws are more often treated as synonymous with interference of owners’ property rights property ownership is a guaranteed right that is overly protected by the law hence any offence deemed to be in violation of this right is subject to a penal sentence. It can thus be concluded that the purpose of the law of theft is to a greater extent to prevent interference with the owner’s property rights. Over and above it can be noted that John is liable for different criminal offences in the case study as he fraudulently obtains his public vehicle licence and goes on to steal money from his employers as well as the unsuspecting passengers. There are clauses enshrined in criminal laws with the purpose of protecting the rights of the people against theft as far as the exchange of services between organisations and individuals is concerned. Every individual has the right to be protected equally by the laws of the land in any country. It can as well be noted that the rights to ownership of property is also enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights which is an internationally acclaimed organisation that is primarily concerned with promoting the rights of the human beings as well as peace and tranquility among different member states. It is therefore important to put measures that deter the offenders from committing criminal offences. References Criminal law-Penal law-Guide to criminal and Penal Law Accessed from: http://www.hg.org/crime.html Accessed 30 March 2010. Ray Moses (2008) ,Silver bullets iv Property Crimes Retrieved from http://stclguns.homestead.com/SilverBullets4.html Accessed 30 March 2010 Ray Moses (2001), CCJA’s Guide to Federal and Texas Bill of Rights and other Individual Freedoms http://stclguns.homestead.com/BillofRights.html [Accessed 30 March 2010 United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 20 June 2007 Accessed from: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2007/06/06-4143.htm What is criminal law? (n.d) Available at: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-criminal-law.htm Accessed on 30 March 2010. Court Adopts Generic Definition of "Theft Offense" Used By Other Circuits for Aggravated Felony Purposes (11 December 2007). Available at http://circuit5.blogspot.com/2007/12/court-adopts-generic-definition-of.html Accessed on 31 March 2010. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948 Read More