Essay On The Levels Of American Law

1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve?

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.

Each state has their own specific unique laws established individually for their state. In conjunction with those laws that exist over the people in their specific state there are also federal laws that govern the states as well as the people who live in them. These laws that govern the people are known as state laws and federal laws. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States. “It creates a federal system of government in which power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Due to federalism, both the federal government and each of the state governments have their own court systems (Comparing

Describe the organization and foundation of the American legal system. Explain the different roles of the federal and state government.

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.

Another element is Specific Intent, which is a mental purpose, target or intention to accomplishing a specific damage or result by acting outlaw. The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to define a special state of mind that is mandatory, with a physical act, to constitute crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually means calculatedly or knowledgeably.

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.

The five principles of a crime are the guilty act or actus reus, the guilty intent or mens rea, the relationship between guilty act and guilty intent, the attendant circumstances and the results. The guilty act or actus reus is the inception of a crime, “this criminal liability occurs only after a voluntary act that results in criminal harm” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). This protects Americans from being punished for bad thoughts. The guilty intent or mens rea establishes and distinguishes between the mental state required in committing a crime. This insures that Americans are not prosecuted for innocently causing harm to another. The relationship and union between the guilty act and the guilty intent further distinguishes an act from being

The court deciphering between criminal negligence and recklessness. Criminal negligence being a person failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

Human civilization marked the beginning of modern day legal systems. The advancements in societies resulted in maintaining certain rules and regulations to continue this progress. Every society has its own set of laws which are in some ways distinct from others. Many of these laws have common sections and underlying guidelines. This could be because some societies decide to retain certain aspects of their customs after breaking out of another society. It could also be the case that over time different societies through trade and other intercultural activities developed together, which caused them to have agreements in their laws. For many others, it is the case that they share a common colonial master. The law and legal systems operating today are derivatives of the forms listed above.

The United States court system is the institution were all the legal disputes in the american society are carryed out and resolved. However, one single court is not enough to resolve every single dispute in society and that is why the court system is made up of two different courts, the federal courts and the state courts. Moreover, the federal and state courts are made up of several divisions made to handle legal disputes differently depending on its seriousness. For example, the state court is made up of trial courts of limited jurisdiction and probate courts were cases and disputes originate and then move up to trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate apellate courts, and courts of last resort respectively depending on the case.In contrast, the federal court consists of district courts, territorial coutrs, tax court, court of international trade, claims court, court of veterans appeals, an courts of military review which then move on to courts of appeals respectively and may ultimately end up in the United States supreme court. In addition, cases from state court may also appeal into the federal court system but not the other way around.

We are given the right of free will and to act as autonomous, but in exchange for this, we must take responsibilities for our actions. Whether or not there is intent, a person could be still culpable for a crime. Their actions, no matter how minor they may be, may still hold the individual accountable for the contribution to the crime. This concept of the “banality of evil” is the idea that we, as individuals, occupy and share an awkward space with others in which our actions are involved in the commission of a crime that we did not intend to comment. This involvement cannot go unpunished and it is at this point that the court decides how much culpability the individual is responsible for. There are, of course, legal defenses that either reduce

If I were conducting an in-service to my fellow officers over the five elements needed to constitute a crime, I would do by going over, explicitly what each element is and provide an example. Furthermore, I would then tie all elements in together for a larger example. According to Brody and Acker (2010), Professor Jerome Hall developed the framework of the five general elements to a crime, which are:

Criminal Intent can be defined as a conscious decision made by a person or party to deprive another party of property or a right. Today, criminal intent is a requirement of almost every legal system as proof of guilt. In America the phrase; ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law is deeply rooted. The number of criminal laws in America however, are so many that even the congress cannot count them all leave alone the average citizen. For this reason the defendant can raise the issue of ignorance about that law. First, Ignorance dismisses the purpose, knowledge, recklessness or negligence which is required by the law to determine criminal intent. Secondly some laws actually allow ignorance as an accepted from of defense for violation