How Do We Justify Imposing Strict Liability for Criminal Offenses

First and foremost, the meaning of crime is any act or omission of duty resulting in harm to society that is punishable by the state. On the face of it there is no clear definition of what those acts or omisions actually are. When a crime has been committed the prosecution has the 'standard of proof' to prove 'beyond resonable doubt' to a jury that the accused had committed the 'actus rea' and/or 'mens rea'. The Actus Rea refers to the guilty act and the Mens Rea refers to the guilty mind or the planning of the crime. During strict liability offences, mens rea doesn't have to be proven only the actus rea. This is because the act is enough to charge someone as the judge sees fit.

Strict liability offences also release the prosecution of the difficult task of proving mens rea as they do not have to spend time and effort proving it. Therefore this increases greater vigilance and administrative efficiency and deterring the effect of conviction and unsafe behaviour.

Consider the design of a puppet. When observing this structure, one will give attention to the source of the puppet’s actions being dictated by the puppeteer. These actions are able to be transmitted from the will of the puppeteer into the puppet through the strings that the puppeteer uses to control specific parts of the puppet. Furthermore, one can infer that the strings of the puppet are the motive behind the puppet’s action. If the puppet’s actions are disoriented or even disjointed, one can infer that the strings or the motives behind the puppet’s actions are conflicting. A notable literary example of this depiction can be found in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserablés. Late in Book V: Valjean, Jean Valjean describes the method of reasoning behind Javert’s suicide when he says, “To owe life to a criminal...to betray society in order to remain true...these absurdities should come about and be heaped on top of him...it was this that defeated him” (Hugo 1181). Javert’s adherence to his internal conflict imploded and eventually influenced his suicide; a reader might see Javert’s decision and confirm that an inner conflict of motives prompted his unanticipated action. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, a 19th Century existentialist Russian author, portrays a similar theme in his book Crime and Punishment which tells the story of a man named Raskolnikov, the suspect of a murder case, who appears like a puppet with actions that become increasingly

“Finally!” Today I went to a school assembly about bullying. The principal said, “If anyone is caught bullying in school, you will be suspended for a week.” I told the principal that we need to make harsher punishments if anyone is bullying. Here are the reasons why there should be harsher punishments for bullying.

The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory

The House of Lords also laid down the guidelines for liability for nervous shock first. Refer to Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire. It is also because of judicial decisions that new crimes such as rape within a marriage are considered a crime today. Refer to R v R. Although parliament has attempted to cover every aspect of the common law in statutory form, they still embody the initial principles.

Provide the justifications for punishment in modern society. Punishment functions as a form of social control and is geared towards “imposing some unwanted burden such as fines, probations, imprisonment, or even death” on a convicted person in return for the crimes they committed (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). There are four main justifications for punishment and they are: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. There is also said to be a fifth justification of reintegration as well.

Explain the concept of strict liability and give two early examples of when this concept was used and applied by the courts.

The aim of the criminal justice system is to balance the numerous rights and values of society and individuals and to ensure that the application of the law is effective and results in just outcomes. The concept of justice is difficult to define and naturally there are areas where there is conflict between rights of individuals and society. The areas of conflict include police powers and the use of tasers, bail and mandatory sentencing.

The four justifications for punishment include, “retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). Retribution is when a person receives a punishment as a result for committing a crime (Reichel, 2013). This form of punishment is deemed necessary by society because a person deserves to pay for breaking the law (Reichel, 2013). “A goal of retribution is to retaliate for the wrong done in such a way that the nature of the punishment reflects the nature of the offense” (Reichel, 2013, p. 231). That is why there are different sentences for different crimes because each deserves a certain punishment (Reichel, 2013). For example, a person who commits murder isn’t going to receive the same punishment as a person

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

Due to interest groups, hysteria, and politicians looking to make a name for themselves, laws and enforcements across the country have gotten rather lopsided in the opinion of some. Because of these laws, those charged with certain offenses wind up paying for their mistakes for their entire lives. In many cases, minor offenders are given sentences and have to adhere to guidelines that make their punishments stiffer than they would be if they committed murder. If you’ve been charged with one of these offenses, the first thing you need to do is contact a good sex crime lawyer.

It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use. Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s), regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will identify and explore these arguments.

It was through the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978) that the court was able to establish and recognize three categories of offences; True criminal offence, which involves having the state of mind of “intent, knowledge, or recklessness”; to commit the actual crime, and “must be proved by the prosecution either as an inference from the nature of the act committed, or by additional evidence”, meaning that a complete mens rea must be included within the offence, and take full punishment for their actions. The second category that was established in the Sault Ste Marie (1978) case, was the concept of Strict Liability Offences; in which, as described as offences that don’t necessarily require the prosecution to prove an existing mens rea, “the doing of the prohibited act prima facie imports the offence, leaving it open to the accused to avoid

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom’s decision in Mohamud represents a subtle yet fundamental change to the area of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability derives from a combination of legal principles and judicial discretion. It is not the result of a clearly developed, logical legal principle . The moving landscape of vicarious liability, as evidenced in Mohamud, can be attributed largely to the courts desire to protect vulnerable plaintiffs. This has occurred by liberal application of existing legal principles and expansive use of judicial discretion.