Responsibility is a Necessary but not a Sufficient Condition of Liability

Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

In order to understand why a company would or would not disclose his contingent liabilities it is important to know exactly what a contingent liability is. As I have learned throughout all of my accounting studies a liability is simply an obligation or debt that a business owes to an individual or an organization. Now there are many liabilities that include services, payroll, notes, and accounts payable. When one of these liabilities becomes a contingent liability it means that it is something that is a potential situation at the time. Contingent liabilities depend on a future event. What this means is the company may or may

The mental state of mind in which you knowingly commit a crime with the intentions of causing a criminal act is called, mens rea. There are different elemental categories of mens rea.

By signing this agreement, I hereby agree to hold Peter Morris entirely free, releasing Peter Morris of any and all liability, duties and financial responsibilities (child support, etc.) relating to pregnancy and/or a child ever being a result of intimate relations with me.

Once a duty of care has been established, the defendant(s) standard of care must then be determined. In view of the fact that General Motors stands to commercially gain a significant amount of revenue and profit from the sale of their products, these large multi-national firms are positioned with a high

To begin with, the case of Steane raised the question as to whether the defendant had made broadcasts with intention. He argued the defence of being under threat of violence to his family and the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction on the basis that there was no intention if it was not his primary aim. This recognises the blurring of intention with desire and motive but it has not been overruled. Additionally, in Chandler v DPP the defendants were charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911 for obstructing an airfield. This case recognises that you can intend two or more purposes and the House of Lords held that their motive was irrelevant.

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

Cases of Strict Liability are cases where liability is imposed without any demonstrated culpability. Strict Liability crimes does not require a “mens rea” or “guilty mind” nor does it require the intent to break the law. Meaning, that these type of crimes do not require the intent to do something wrong or morally blameworthy. The defendant is held responsible regardless of their intentions. Although the defendant may not have a guilty mind, they are still held responsible for their actions. The purpose of these crimes are to protect the public from great harm. The question can be asked on how these crimes are justified, because in some cases there is an honest and reasonable mistake of fact. However, the justification for the enforcement

The English Law on Vicarious Liability An employer is responsible for damage caused by the torts of his employees acting in the course of employment. This is known as ‘vicarious liability’[1]. Essentially, vicarious liability is where the employer is generally substituted in terms of liability for the employee, the employee also has liability but the resources of the employer such as insurance makes them more financially attractive to the claimant. The mechanism of vicarious liability is arguably the best compromise between the needs of tort victims and the freedom of businesses as the employer usually has insurance to cover the tort of the employee, making it more financially viable to the

The problem question deals mainly with the issue of Vicarious Liability and Negligence. In order to advise Jerry one would have to explore the rules of vicarious liability, relevant statute law and case law which may apply.

With great power comes with great responsibility, responsibility can be shown in our daily lives, doing homework, remembering to wake up for school, everything in our lives require this quality. Responsibility isn't even hard to understand or acquire all you need to do is respect yourself in order to respect others. It is important that we know our limitations and know how much tasks and values we can handle instead of going overboard. No matter how intelligent you are there is ones limitation can a person handle a amount of responsibility. What is responsibility? Responsibility is the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone, being accountable or to blame for something, the opportunity or ability

A potential liability dependent upon some future event occurring or not occurring. For example, a company is named as a defendant in a $1 million lawsuit. Does that mean the company automatically has a liability of $1 million? What if the lawsuit has no merit and can easily be defended? If it is probable that the company will lose and the amount can be estimated, a journal entry is prepared to debit Loss from Lawsuit and to credit Lawsuit Payable. If it is possible but not probable that the company will lose, the journal entry is not made but instead there will be a footnote disclosure. If the lawsuit is remote (a nuisance suit without any merit), there is no need for a journal entry and no need to disclose the

Laws are constantly developing to meet the needs of an ever changing society which needs an unbiased court of Law. Statutes and common law has its own advantages and disadvantages in the development of civil and criminal liability. In this essay I will explore murder, rape and rape in criminal liability and contract and tort in civil liability.

Following DPP v Smith, the next major case in this area of the law to