The due process model is seen to focus on the suspect whereas the crime control model focuses on the society. This paper analyzes these two models and based on the rate of crime in the society, makes recommendations as to which is the best model in criminal justice. The principle in law that one is innocent until proven guilty has created much discourse. There are those who feel that the moment that one is arrested, there is reasonable belief that they committed the crime. 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.
“Breach of duty in negligence liability may be found to exist where the defendant fails to meet the standard of care required by law. Once it has been established that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care, the claimant must also demonstrate that the defendant was in breach of duty. The test of breach of duty is generally objective, however, there may be slight variations to this”. While using the objective test also referred to as the reasonable man test to determine negligence in breach of duty, the court will decide if the defendant fell below the standard of the reasonable man. The standard of care expected from this hypothetical character is objective; not taking into account the characteristics or weaknesses of the defendant
Introduction This question requires for an understanding on the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission. As well as whether the rules and principles are too restrictive on individual freedom. In order to have an understanding of the rules and principles of omissions, one first must understand how criminal liability is imposed. For a person to be found guilty of a crime they must have both the mens rea and actus reus of the committed crime. Actus reus is the guilty deed or act and mens rea is the guilty state of mind.
Deadly force is only justified as a last resort. This is especially, if there is significant threat of death or bodily harm to yourself or the people around you. However this is a question of judgment which is left to the interpretation of the person who feels his or her life is danger. Even with that, the use of force given the circumstances the degree of judgment and subsequent use of force should be reasonable. Note that the use of force is not permitted and thus against the law, but it is justified in some instances.
Mental state, intention and responsibility A crime is defined as an act that is capable of being followed by criminal proceedings. In any offences, the accused should be proven on whether he has physically done the act (actus reus) or that the act has casued the offending consequences. Secondly, the accused should be assessed on whether he/she has intention to do it (mens rea). Three other forms of intent that needed to be taken into considerations are: Recklessness, Negligence and Accident. Recklessness is defined as the deliberate taking of an unjustifiable risk.
Traditionally and legally the burden of proof is on the prosecution because of the established principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty which is the fundamental principle of procedural farness is criminal law. It is considered fundamental because it is believed that it is better to allow an accused to go scot free than punish an innocent. The party who brings the case has the responsibility to produce before the judge all such necessary materials as are required to prove actus reus and mens rea behind a crime.The same is incorporated in section 101 of the evidence act which in its essence says that the person that desires a Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he
The question above calls for the detailed analysis of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, hereby as, CDA 1971, and how it is to be applied at situation which involve property damage and punishments for the required act. Further discussion would also include the situation where a threat is used to destroy property damage according to the CDA 1971. In order to apply the CDA 1971, we need to know, what criminal damage actually means. Criminal damage is any damage which has been caused by an individual to some form of property. When a case is concerned with damage to property which is criminal, the case is brought by the state against that individual in a criminal court and the most common examples of criminal damage would be arson.
The theory of criminal justice This theory states that criminal procedures are part and branch of philosophy that focuses on punish those who break the law. There is a strong correlation between criminal procedures and the philosophy of law as well as the morals and ethical standards of society. Criminal law theorists put more emphases on offenses that can be seen as illegal and that warrant criminalization of the activities or events. Thus, most of these theorists believe that there is the need to punish the lawbreakers to set an example to other individuals who may have intentions of following their suit or engaging in legal activities. Some of the activities classified by criminal law theorist as a crime or illegal include murder, rape and
The criminal justice system is agencies set in place by the government to control crime and give punishment to those that violate the law. The criminal justice system is comprised of three major institutions which are law enforcement, the court system and corrections. Law enforcement are the ones who enforce the law and then remind arrestees of these rights. The fourth amendment which is prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures of one before he/she is questioned. You have several parts of the criminal justice system like law enforcement, prosecution, defense attorneys, you have the court system there are restrictions on a case being prosecuted including the right to confront ones accusers.