False Imprisonment : A Tort Of Strict Liability

The two topics that piqued my interest were found in Chapter 3 and 4. I chose these topics because it was discussed briefly and I wanted to know more about it. I find these topics interesting. The two topics should be addressed more within the concept of correction.

A tort is an act of wrong doing to one in the absence of a contract. The wrong doing occurs when there is a breach of duty, that is, when one has been inattentive to act in a reasonable manner. The wrong doing or wrongful act must cause loss or injury in order to be acknowledged as a tort. Furthermore, a tort is not necessarily a crime, but depending on the wrongful act committed, could be considered both a tort and a crime, such as when one is physically attacked. A tort is treated as a civil wrong, is used to more or less, make amends to the individual victim via compensation; punitive damages may also be assessed. A crime is considered a public wrong, a breach of duty to the general public, resulting in criminal action being taken by the state, which may include punishment via incarceration. (McAdams, 2015, p. 278).

There are six elements when committing a crime; corpus delicti, actus reus, mens rea, specific intent, general intent, and negligence. The first, Corpus delicti, is defined as "the body of crime” this is the material that substance a crime. The phrase corpus delicti means that before a person can be persecuted there must be concrete evidence that the crime was committed. The corpus delicti also helps to describe the evidence that proves that a crime has been committed.

The influx of inmates in the late 1970s through 1980s led to unsustainable prions condition that violated inmate’s rights granted by the Eight Amendment. As the budgets were being exhausted, transpired the issues of inmate’s poor medical treatment, abusive physical security, and unsuitable physical conditions (Newman and Scott 2013, 547). In the 1976 case of Estelle v. Gamble, the Supreme Court of the United States “established that an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights were violated if prison personnel demonstrated “deliberate indifference” to a prisoner's “serious illness or injury” (Newsman and Scott 2012, 548). The increased volume of filed lawsuits led to the passing of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which “ targeted frivolous lawsuits by limiting waivers for the requirement that inmates pay filing fees,

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are most notable for their protection of the rights of suspected and accused individuals. All to often we forget it also covers the rights of those persons convicted of a crime. There are two positions when it comes the rights of convicted and imprisoned persons, which are rights-are-retained and rights-are-lost. In retrospect, they are both right because prisoners rights may not be granted rights nor shall rights be withheld that are not supported by law. Therefore, prisoners are given Conditional Rights because they are constrained by the legitimate needs of imprisonment. The Conditional Rights of inmates are communication and vision, religious freedom, access to the courts and legal assistance,

Preventative Detention Orders serve as a viable alternatives to judicial trials, by allowing Police to ‘detain or restrict the movement of individuals without charge or conviction’. External reviews of PDO’s by the Law Council of Australia has deemed these measures ‘justifiably balance security and civil liberties’ by prioritizing community safety over the presumed innocence of terror

6. Pretrial detainees are "walking legal contradictions" because “According to the U.S. Constitution, they are innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, by being incarcerated while awaiting trial, they are denied a number of personal freedoms and are subjected to the poor conditions of manu jails” (Gaines

Bulsey & Anor v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 187 signified the requirements of legal justifications when conducting unwarranted arrests, and further expresses the importance of the right to personal liberty as it is ‘the most fundamental of the human rights recognised under the common law.’ It was evident to the Judges that at least one officer held reasonable suspicion that “the suspect” had committed an indictable offence, but the lawfulness of the arrest was inevitably questioned as to whether an officer with reasonable suspicion was the arresting officer. The judgements in favour of the appellants heightens the need for officers to use their powers within the ‘confines of the law’ when ‘forcibly arrest[ing] and detaining’ a person as to preserve the right to personal liberty, for once this right is left in the power of any authority, to imprison arbitrarily whomever they suspect, ‘there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities.’

The primary issues in the case that were discussed were about whether it is necessary that the police officer who makes an arrest in obedience to that order also holds the suspicion, whether a judge’s delay in giving judgment can prejudice the second appellant’s case, and whether the conduct of the police and “SERT” Operatives constitutes as torts of false imprisonment or assault. (Elaborate on all 3 issues) Whether or not s 52(1) in Ch 3 of CLA precludes awards of aggravated damages. “A court can not award exemplary, punitive or aggravated damages in relation to a claim for personal injury damages.”

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

While solitary confinement is one of the most effective ways of keeping todays prisoners from conflict and communication, it is also the most detrimental to their health. According to NPR the reason for most solitary confinement units in America “is to control the prison gangs (NPR, 2011).” But that is not always the case. Sometimes putting a gang member in solitary reduces the shock and awe effect that it is supposed to have, when they start losing their minds. The prisoners kept in solitary confinement show more psychotic symptoms than that of a normal prisoner, including a higher suicide rate. Once a prisoner’s mental capacity to understand why he is in prison and why he is being punished is gone, there is no reason to keep said

According to the prisons inspectorate, the ‘health’ of a prison should be measured according to safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement (HMCIP, 2013). Choose one of these factors, and using academic research to support your argument, discuss to what extent this represents a critical element of imprisonment in contemporary society.

Prisons and jails remain skeptical of the differences revealed between stabilizing the constitutional rights of prisoners and the function of the actual facility. Constitutional rights kept by inmates must be balanced against security concerns of the prison. However, these constitutional rights can be disregarded for security purposes if the situation presents itself. The Supreme Court developed a test consisting of four questions to indorse the constitutional rights of inmates and the valid needs of prison administrators. (Collins, 2007) This test is known as The Turner Test.

Although inmates may not have full Constitutional rights while incarcerated, they are entitled to basic human rights, freedom and dignity. U.S. penal systems have been reformed at the beginning of the 1960’s. The reason for this reformation is to prevent inhumane treatment, provide inmates with religious freedom, and due process (Smith, 2010). The U.S. Supreme Court

as are persons subjected to coercion or duress to such a degree as to render the