Criminal Liability
Criminal liability refers to the legal responsibility a person faces for committing a criminal offense. It involves being held accountable for one's actions through the criminal justice system, which may result in penalties such as fines, imprisonment, or other forms of punishment. Criminal liability is determined based on evidence and the application of relevant laws and legal principles.
5 Key excerpts on "Criminal Liability"
eBook - ePub- Gary Slapper, David Kelly(Authors)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...Chapter 5 The criminal law 5.1 The general principles of Criminal Liability 5.1.1 The nature and sources of criminal law Criminal law obviously concerns crime, but what is a crime? There is a view that it is impossible to identify a universal definition of the nature of a crime because the essence of criminality changes with historical context. As Glanville Williams has observed: …a crime (or offence) is a legal wrong that can be followed by criminal proceedings which may result in punishment [ Learning the Law, 1983, p 27]. In other words, a crime is anything that the State has chosen to criminalise. A similar analysis was adopted by Lord Atkin: … the domain of criminal jurisprudence can only be ascertained by examining what acts at any particular period are declared by the State to be crimes, and the only common nature they will be found to possess is that they are prohibited by the State and that those who commit them are punished [ Proprietary Articles Trade Association v AG for Canada [1931] AC 324]. Williams seems eventually to have conceded that invoking criminal law requires that a threshold of seriousness attaches to the conduct proscribed—a concession precisely because this further feeds into a circular definition: …a crime is an act that is condemned sufficiently strongly to have induced the authorities (legislature or judges) to declare it to be punishable before the ordinary courts [ Learning the Law, 1983, p 29]. This idea that any definition tendered of a crime convenes around there being the notion of a threshold to justify criminal law’s intervention is pervasive...
eBook - ePub- Kenny Chin(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...3 Criminal Law You should be familiar with the following areas: • various elements in crime • mens rea, actus reus and strict liability • minors in criminal law • definition and specific defences of murder • different forms of manslaughter • definitions and requirements of various assault offences • definitions and requirements of theft and other offences against property • various general defences and their applications Nature of Criminal Liability What is crime? Halsbury’s Laws of England defines crime as: … an unlawful act or default which is an offence against the public and renders the person guilty of the act or default liable to legal punishment. Two main objectives of criminal law are: (a) to punish and reform the offenders; and (b) to protect the public and individuals from harm which may be caused by the unlawful act or default. Classification of crime The following are three main ways that various offences can be classified: Classification by the method of trial There are summary, indictable and either way offences. Summary offences are those which are triable in magistrates’ courts only and heard by magistrates. They are usually less serious crimes. Indictable offences are those which can only be tried in the Crown Court, heard by a judge and a jury. The judge deals with issues of law and the jury decides on facts. There are also either-way offences, which can be tried either in magistrates’ courts or the Crown Court. All criminal cases start in magistrates’ courts; therefore, if a case is an either way offence or an indictable offence, there are procedures to decide in which court the matter is to be heard and to transfer the case to the Crown Court. Further details of these procedures are stated in Chapter 9. Statutory and common law offences Statutory offences are those crimes that are provided by Acts of Parliament or by delegated legislation...
eBook - ePub- Joycelyn M. Pollock(Author)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...In strict liability crimes, mens rea is not required. In “vicarious liability” crimes, there is no requirement for either mens rea or actus reus because this type of liability occurs through a relationship with others who do prohibited acts. For instance, a business owner may be liable for the conduct of someone else, generally an employee. These statutes have been upheld, because the penalty is usually a fine rather than a jail sentence. In the criminal law system in the United States, the prosecution has the heavier burden of proof. The prosecution has the responsibility to prove each element of the crime with which the accused is charged beyond a reasonable doubt. If one element is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the person charged cannot be convicted of that particular crime...
eBook - ePub- (Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Straightforward Publishing Digital(Publisher)
...A party may also be found guilty of failing to act if there is a duty imposed on him by virtue of the special relationship between him and the victim. One such case was Instan 1893 where a niece failed to get help for her aunt with whom she was living. The aunt contracted gangrene in her leg and died and the niece was held guilty of manslaughter. Two other areas where omission implies liability are where the defendant has voluntarily accepted responsibility for the other and where there is liability under a continuous act. The Mens Rea of a crime In most cases it will be necessary that the defendant has committed the act with the relevant mens rea or the degree of blameworthiness required by the offence. Some offences, such as the offence of strict liability, outlined later do not require fault to be proved. Mens Rea means the mental element, or state of mind, that the defendant must possess at the time of performing whatever crime he or she is involved in. Different degrees of mens rea This varies depending on the seriousness of the offence. In the most serious criminal offences the prosecution will usually have to prove a high degree of blameworthiness. The defendant will only be held to be guilty if it can be proved that he fully intended to commit the crime. Crimes of specific intent Murder is a crime of specific intent where the accused will only be convicted by the jury if they are convinced that he meant to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Intention is also needed for theft crimes. The accused will not be convicted unless it can be demonstrated that he took property with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of it. Crime of basic intent There are certain crimes that do not require such a high degree of fault to be demonstrated. They can be committed either with intention or recklessly...
eBook - ePubThe Limits of Blame
Rethinking Punishment and Responsibility
- Erin I. Kelly(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Harvard University Press(Publisher)
...These criteria set the legal standard of avoidability: they define the sense in which a person could have complied with the law and with morality. Or, otherwise expressed, the law holds that it was possible for that person to have avoided his crime, and reasonable to have required it of him. The law regards his will and action as relevantly free. As indicated, particularly with respect to crimes that hinge on negligence and strict liability, but even with respect to crimes requiring certain forms of intentionality, the notion of “reasonable opportunity to avoid” that is built into the twin requirements of mens rea and actus reus is weak. Some and perhaps many actors who are accurately deemed criminally guilty will not have had a realistic chance to avoid committing the offense under the circumstances in which they committed it. Some do not understand the danger they pose to others. Some are not able to control their impulses. Some do not understand the nature of the actions they are performing or what the law requires. Some lack basic concern for other people. People are held criminally liable for decisions clouded by mental illness, impulsivity, immaturity, intellectual disability, drugs, and alcohol. In many cases, the opportunities convicted persons had to avoid committing their crimes do not resemble what we ordinarily think of as reasonable prospects to comply with the law. The law’s conception of reasonable opportunity to avoid criminal sanctions is a function of how it treats not only a defendant’s subjective limitations and, of course, her liberty interests, but also the rights of other people not to be harmed. The importance of protecting people’s equal rights not to be harmed provides some reason to resist making a defendant’s liability depend on her psychology, both because it can be so difficult to assess a person’s psychological limitations and because a person with psychological problems may pose serious risks to other people...
