Arguments Against Criminalisation

However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities. The differences The due process model is pegged on the belief that it would be better if a criminal found innocent goes free rather than have one innocent person in jail. On the other hand, the crime control model argues that it is better to have a innocent person detained, questioned, tried and found innocent then let free than have a society full of criminals roaming

The breaking of these ‘small’ laws is not to be taken lightly by justice and should have its consequences. Not to show whoever committed the crime to being a true criminal, but to prevent the worst outcome from what is considered ‘a small

As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat could be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear or physical harm. However offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate threat, does not justify the use of force in self-defense. Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor did not actually mean the perceived victim any harm (“Self-Defense Overview-

However, public humiliation should still not be used as a punishment for a crime or wrongdoing. Public humiliation is not as effective as it is intended. The intention of the punishment is to embarrass the criminal so that it will deter them from continuing

“It is not about what we do, but too what we do not do, for which we are accountable.” No action doesn’t amount to no crime but the statute arbitrates create offences of omission. In Bratty V Attorney-General , Lord Denning said that it must be a voluntary act to be punished. Voluntary act is when an individual has complete control and conscious exercise of will on his/her body. Saying if A failed to save B, but A did no positive act to cause B’s death, should A be liable? Omission cannot form the base of actus reus of an offence.

Retributivism punishes criminals for the wrongful act they performed; retributivism is backward looking. We do not punish a criminal for what they will do tomorrow, but for what they have already done. Retributivist finds consequences irrelevant. Retributivist want to know what someone deserves by looking back the act one has

This contention is refuted by Immanuel Kant who set forth the idea that, a society that is not willing to request a life of some individual who has taken another person 's life is essentially immoral. It is immoral to not legitimately rebuff an individual who has committed such a shocking crime. The criminal is additionally executed altruistically; not the slightest bit is he subjected to torment or any type of savagery. All states that utilize the death

It primarily arises where the accused has taken an unjustifiable risk with a little amount of intent behind the consequence of the action. Recklessness can fall under two categories which are objective and subjective recklessness which I shall discuss in more detail later in my essay. Recklessness is an alternative fault for offences including manslaughter, criminal damage and offences against the person. (4) Subjective recklessness is when the accused is aware of the risk but decides to take it anyway such as in R V Cunningham. (6) Objective recklessness is where the accused did not allude to the possibility that there was a risk which would have been obvious to the reasonable

Due to the reason that individual decisions are made in a social context, crime becomes an issue due to the social, economic and cultural reasons rather than being just an individual choice or inheritance from parents. It is often suggested by some people that it is the individual offenders who commit crime based on their personal decision. While choosing between what kind of crime to commit or not, self-control is necessary. However, it should be taken into account that the individual decisions are made as a result of social, cultural and economic situation of the criminals

This means that this moral obligation comes before the moral obligation to obey the law. Obligation to obey the law is only redundant since it is derived from these other moral obligations. If people refrain from doing immoral actions, it is because those actions are morally forbidden not because of the laws that prohibit