Strict Liability In Criminal Law

The same general principles apply: an act plus a harm, regardless of intent, equals liability. Speeding is a good example of a strict liability offense. Statutes allow for drivers to be ticketed and punished for the strict liability offense of speeding, even when the driver was merely reckless about monitoring his own speed.

Having established the purpose of strict liability, it is evident as to why it can be seen as a controversial area in law making and this essay will outline some of the arguments for and against it that are commonly put forward on the effective enforcement of the law and the maintenance of standards.

Strict liability offences are offences which do not require proof of mens rea. This means that the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant voluntarily committed a forbidden act without considering if the defendant had the intention. Strict liability is contained in statutes or statutory instruments, and occasionally found in common law. Common law offences of strict liability include criminal libel and blasphemous libel. Also liability is rarely absolute. Most strict liability offences are regulatory and are involved in environmental protection laws, food, health and safety, the sale of alcohol and many more.

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.

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.

Once a pardon was approved by His Majesty through the Secretary of the State it couldn't be revoked.6

Currently, sentences vary based on mental state, injury, and offense level (Benson-Varghese 2017). The three levels of mental state include “intentionally or knowingly caused”, caused by

This power is one of the least limited powers granted to the president under the Constitution. The power of pardoning someone came from the royal English Prerogative of Kings. Charles Pickney decided to propose the option of giving the chief the power to pardon someone on the 29th of May 1787. He did so since neither the New Jersey plan nor the Virginia Plan gave the chief the power to do so. “Alexander Hamilton reflects this in The Federalist No. 74, in which he argues that "humanity and good policy" require that "the benign prerogative of pardoning" was necessary to mitigate the harsh justice of the criminal code. The pardon power would provide for "exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt.” "The President's Broad Power to Pardon and Commute." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Aug.

SUMMARY:  President Trump pardons a Sherriff, who now is petitioning for his record to be clean; however, the U.S District Judge states that the power of a presidential pardon cannot erase a judgement of conviction.

Complicity, better known as accomplice liability, is the act of assisting or encouraging another to commit a crime. Often times this term is correlated with the act of aiding or abetting which can be interpreted easily. Although an accomplice did not directly act within the crime, their actions that positively affected the crime can lead to their conviction as an accomplice. This can be a person who stood by and watched a crime happen, a person who helped plan out the process of a crime, or even a person who ignorantly aided one another with a crime. In two different cases studied, Pace vs. State of Indiana and Settles vs U.S, the appellants on trial are fighting against their involvement in their separate crimes. For Pace, his involvement with a robbery taken place within his vehicle that he failed to stop rules him liable as an accomplice. With his driving during the robbery and assisting the criminals escape from the victim, a trial could be formed to convict him as an accomplice. In the Settles case, a man, Whitley, is on trial for being an accomplice to a kidnapping and sexual assault committed by Settles. Without knowledge if Whitley had any involvement in the planning process of the crime, the trial stands to convict Whitley for standing watch out and allowing a crime to occur. A testimony by the victim claiming that Whitley was seen running away from the scene of the crime with Settles also ads to the evidence being used to convict him as an accomplice.

The power to pardon is not the most discussed power of the President of the United States. However, there have been some controversial cases that sparked the debate about limiting this power. This paper deals with the origins of this constitutional clause, its limits and interpretations by the Supreme Court of the United States. I would like to mention some controversial cases and connected debate about limiting this power.

A pardon is a governmental decision to absolve an individual for a criminal conviction, often times freeing him from all or part of the punishment imposed at sentencing. Pardons are typically granted by the President, or by individual state governors, but may be granted, in certain circumstances, for groups of people. Federal pardons are granted by the president of the United States, and each state's law dictates with whom the power to grant state pardons lies. To explore this concept, consider following the pardon

Moving along, next I want to define presidential pardons. The President has the power to grant pardons as long as it is a federal offense and the case must not be involved with impeachment. In a presidential pardon, the criminal record of offense is not wiped clean. The pardon itself will reinstate various rights but they still have

Presidential immunity protects the President from civil liability for official acts committed as President (New York Times, 1997). The overall intention of Presidential immunity is to allow the President to govern effective and make prudent decisions for the country without the fear of indictment.

According to Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 "The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." It means that the President had the power to grant pardon to a person who commits crime or offence against the United States, it abolish all the legal effects of a conviction. It can be granted from the time the offense was committed or after the full sentences has been served.