Law, Fault Essay (Aqa)

An example would be a elderly man whom had a heart attack while driving and an accident ensued. I believe he should not be held criminally for the accident although he should be held financially responsible, because someone has to be. Another example would be a case I saw

Negligence: A person acts negligently if they should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain consequence would result from their actions. Although the level of risk is the same for both recklessness and negligence, the difference between the two is that with recklessness, the actor must be aware of the risk involved with her actions, whereas, for negligence, the actor is not aware of the risks but should have known what those risks were”(National Paralegal College, 2017).

Causation refers to whether the defendant's conduct caused the harm or damage in a crime and it must be established in all result crimes. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. In most cases, factual causation alone will be enough to establish causation. However, in some circumstances it will also be necessary to consider legal causation. Legal causation is when the result must be caused by a culpable act, the act of the defendant may not necessarily need to be the only cause, but must be more than minimal. Factual causation is

The first legal concepts we will cover are Torts. By definition a tort is a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Now when dealing with torts the first question that needs to be answer is a question of liability. There are: intentional liability, negligence liability, and strict

The second part of the paper will review the arguments of crown and counsel while comparing them towards the judge’s decision. Counsel argued the accused the accused use of

The M’Naghten Rule addresses some jurisdiction for determining whether a criminal defendant have the volume to associate criminal intent for insanity at the time they committed the offense of which they are being accused, in which the M’Naghten test for right-wrong. The M’Naghten test focus on the time the act was committed, if the defendant was experiencing

is false, because there are cases where a person is morally responsible for what she has done even if she could not have done otherwise (835-6). Call such cases Frankfurt-style cases. A lot of literature thereafter has been targeted on these Frankfurt-style cases, particularly whether it’s really possible to construct them. Among critics of Frankfurt, David Widerker (2003) takes one step further and he grants, for the sake of his argument, that it is possible to construct Frankfurt-style cases ; however, he argues that even so, Frankfurt’s argument still fails because there are counter-examples to Frankfurt-style cases, which are in favor of PAP (60-2).

A defendant can possess mens rea and still try to do the right thing. In the case of abuse, some parents and adult victims still try to seek medical attention for the injured party, while others flee or attempt to conceal the act. Where there is theft, there are defendants who attempt to return the merchandise, sometimes successful in avoiding prosecution and sometimes not, and so on. The presence of mens rea is not the sole guarantee of a conviction, however it is a very important part, and can determine case value almost immediately. It can also, as stated previously, give insight to a defense as well as project the application of sentencing guidelines and plea agreements to be

There are several types of judicial culpability: strict liability, knowingly, full moral agency, recklessly and negligence. If the person is found to be culpable, he or she can be blamed and held criminally responsible for the behaviors which were considered to be criminal in nature Smit (2005). The measure of culpability was found to be a vital part of many legal arguments and sentencing decisions. In rare cases, like strict liability crimes or engaging in conduct where his/her mental state is irrelevant, the accused will always be held responsible, regardless of their assumed culpability Smit (2005). According to Smit (2005), when someone committed a crime knowingly or in cases where the person was very certain that his/her conduct would lead to a certain result, their actions were often looked at as being the most serious form of blameworthiness. Also if the accused was also determined to have had what was called full moral agency or the ability to make moral and ethical decisions, he or she was considered to be culpable for the crime in question Giedd et al (1999). Each of these types of legal capabilities could be used to assist legal officials in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused person. Some criminals willingly engaged in activities that they know will possibly lead to a criminal event, become a danger, threat or cause harm to

The nature of criminal law is such that one can be guilty without having physically committed the alleged crime- one who participates in carrying out a crime as an accessory or principal via their counsel, role in conspiring, or manipulation qualifies for a sentence independent of the physical perpetrator, which can be more or less severe in comparison. The presence of actus reus - the wrongful act that constitutes a crime, as well as mens rea - the guilty mind that makes the act culpable, allows anyone to be liable for criminal activity. In William Shakespeare’s Macbeth, the regicide of King Duncan is committed without the perpetrators being convicted in a court of law.

In criminal law, this failure to act is identified as an omission and has been subjected to much controversy on its imposition of liability. However, before an analysis of whether or not it is fair to impose liability can take place, it is important to understand what an omission is, exceptions to the general rule of omissions which will include situations such as contractual duties, special relationships, voluntary assumption of care, creation of dangerous situations and statutory duties. Finally, the author will put forth arguments for criminalising failures to act and arguments against imposing liability for an omission before concluding why it is that the author feels that the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission are not too restrictive on individual

The court has a legal responsibility to determine if the defendant on trial was of sound mind at both the time of the crime and competent enough to understand the consequences of his or her actions. For example, in cases where a defendant suffers from mental illness or defect, such as those resulting from a TBI, the defendant may not be capable of formulating mens rea and, therefore, cannot commit legal commit a particular crime with any form of true intention. However, the general meaning of intent changes somewhat with regard to the legal responsibility of a crime and generally requires some form of premeditation by the defendant. Essentially, the term intention is defined within the justice system as being a formal commitment or plan of

In the United States Criminal Law the term "intent" refers to the defendant's mindset at the time of committing the crime. Crimes are listed according to the intent that the defendant choose to proceed. For instances, the two basic types of intent crimes are specific intent and general intent. Having specific intent is when the defendant meant the act and the outcome. General intent is when the defendant meant the act but not the outcome. Mens rea, is known as the guilty mind. Mens rea is an important concept in criminal law because when a crime is committed, a person’s mental state is considered. Therefore, the defendant's mental state plays a role in whether or not he can be convicted of a particular crime. Criminal intent is one of the reasons for

It is difficult to know for certain which offences the courts will class as specific intent crimes and which they will class as basic intent crimes. Critics argue that the distinction should be abandoned and the matter left in the hands of the jury in each case. Others argue that since the defendant was unable to form mens rea, he or she should not be held criminally liable at all. However, policy issues would probably prevent this from ever happening. The general law takes a subjective approach to mens rea- if there is no mens rea, then there should be no offence as seen in the case of G and R. However, in Majewski, this is ignored and it was decided that even if the defendant hadn’t seen the risk of his actions he will be guilty as he became

Next is a guilty mind or menus rei, which focuses on the perpetrators mental state at the time of the criminal act. Concurrence is the combination of menus rei and actus rei which requires the act of the crime and the mental state happened together in order for the criminal offense to take place. Causation refers to the fact that a guilty mind and a criminal act were able to cause some form of harm to another. .Harm occurs in every crime but it doesn’t always mean physical harm. Some crimes are classified as victimless crimes where no individual was harmed, but society as a whole is harmed say some legal theorists. Legality means the fact that the action is or isn’t illegal, like smoking cigarettes is illegal if you are under 18, but if you are older the same action is no longer considered illegal which means you did not commit a criminal action.