In Kemp (1957), Devlin J affirmed that the law is concerned with the mind rather than the brain and this is a legal term rather than a medical term. This lead to the conviction of epileptics (Sullivan 1984), sleepwalking (Burgess 1911) and hyperglycaemia (Hennessy 1985). However, this rule had been criticised as they are not actually suffering from a mental disorder. The English Law however, group such people in the same category as criminal like serial killers or psychopaths. Secondly, the defendant must show that he do not know ‘the nature and quality of the act he was doing’.
Battery has been defined as “the direct and intentional application of physical force to the person of another without lawful justification” . It is the act of making physical contact. This must be intentional. In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner  1 QB 439,  3 All ER 442 ), the defendant was held liable for criminal assault as prior to having negligently driven his car on the foot of a police offer, the defendant subsequently deliberately delayed to remove the vehicle. In battery, any form of physical contact, no matter how trivial, is enough to constitute ‘force’.
The actions of these bullies are too severe to not be dealt and prosecuted in court. An example of why bullies should be prosecuted in court is, the victim 's best chance of finding relief and be put at ease is to bring a private suit against the bully. The bully has violated many laws and social media agreements, stalking laws. But the private lawsuit does not give total esurance of relief for the victim because bullying is not against the law. Therefore making bullying illegal is the proper solution (Manuel).
Judge Haugh declared that “One is not entitled to seek damages for mere bad manners or mere sensitivity, but there is however an action known to the law of tort that entitles a person to compensation when they suffer a recognized psychiatric consequence of harassment ,that is inexcusable conduct intentionally or recklessly handed out. Before he can succeed in an action for the wilful or reckless infliction or emotional harm there must be a form of harassment or a form of misconduct formed on the part of the defendant that any right-minded right-thinking person would consider to be gratuitous or reprehensible. It must be done either with the intention of humiliating or embarrassing the butt of the harassment ,or it must be done where there is a risk of such an adverse reaction and that risk is unjustifiably
A criminal defendant who is found to have been legally insane when he or she commited a crime may be found not guilty by reason of insanity. In some cases, the defendant may be found guilty but sentenced to a less severe punishment due to a mental impairment. In states that allow the insanity defense , defendants must prove to the court that they did not understand what they were doing, failed to know right from wrong, acted on an uncontrollable impulse or some variety of these factors. It is very difficult to prove that insanity exits and there are cases where people are used for insanity that are really not insane. I believe that pleading insanity should be abolished.
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
It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non.’ The liability in civil law is based upon the amount of damages incurred whereas in criminal law, the amount and degree of negligence is a factor in determining liability. However, certain elements must be established to determine criminal liability in any particular case- the motive of the offence, the magnitude of the offence, and the character of the offender. In Poonam Verma vs Ashwin Patel the Supreme Court distinguished between negligence, rashness, and recklessness . A negligent person is one who inadvertently commits an act of omission and violates a positive duty. A person who is rash knows the consequences but foolishly thinks that they will not occur as a result of her/ his act.
Different crimes require different degrees of intent. A person may be considered to be reckless when a person does not intend to cause harm but brings about some form of harm by virtue of having taken an unjustifiable risk. Sometimes such person's conduct is so reckless that it becomes the basis for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution. If a person acts with such utter disregard for the safety of others -- and knows (or should know) that such actions may cause harm to someone else – that person may be liable for injuries caused by his recklessness. Inception of Recklessness The term reckless was first created to deal with, (which is now rather an archaic term malicious used to be prevalent in many statutes in the nineteenth century, such as
The opponents of corporate criminal liability have asserted that the recognition of such liability violates the principle of personal punishment, which is one of the fundamental principles of criminal law. The principle of personal punishment requires punishment to be limited to the person who committed the crime only. Corporate criminal liability requires personal fault from a representative or employee. As the corporation is the default entity (inanimate), personal fault cannot be assigned to it legally, because it is unable to commit the crime by itself. So imposing the punishment on a legal person is impossible, because crimes are personal ,and can only be committed by natural persons.
Thesis: Gross Negligence is not a State of Mind. No persons should be found guilty of a crime merely because he acted below the standard of the reasonable man. (FOR) In Criminal law by Card, Cross and Jones, the term mens rea is defined as “the state of mind expressly or impliedly required by the definition of the offence charged.” These ‘states of mind’ have routinely been understood to include “intention” and “recklessness”. Over time, there have been debates as to whether ‘negligence’ – a type of fault that carries a heavy criminal burden – is a state of mind. Here, we argue that negligence, particularly gross negligence, is not a state of mind, and contend that no persons should be found guilty of a crime because he acted below the standard of the reasonable man.