This is because of a cardinal principle in criminal law found in the maxim actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. This means that for a crime to have occurred one has to prove the two elements of criminal law which are actus reus and mens rea. Yet the doctrine of strict liability dictates that a crime can be committed without the mens rea element. However, the notion that it can be said that a crime has been committed without the mens rea element has gained a lot of traction over the years. This notion seems unbending in cases of statutory rape.
Later concluding, in a seven-to-two decision, the court ruled that this punishment did not violate neither the Eighth nor Fourteenth Amendment under all circumstances. Furthermore, the court found that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent for capital crimes and appropriate means of retribution against serious offenders (Gregg v. Georgia). The controversial topic of whether or not capital punishment is constitutional or not has been proven by specific amendments. The fifth amendment specifically states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” The United
Salmond standing opposed to Winfield opines that there is no “law of tort” (meaning no specific principle of establishing tortious liability) but merely “law of torts”. What he meant to say is that the law of torts consists of a number of specific rules prohibiting certain well-defined harmful acts prohibited by Common Law. This means that there is a certain list of commissions and omissions of acts which under specific situations are actionable in a court of law. Hence according to Salmond, people are only allowed to file a case against that specific act or omission which comes within one of these recognized categories. Like law recognizes specific acts like theft, forgery, dacoity, murder, rape and etc.
DANIEL COLON CJA 301 MODULE 2 CASE TRIDENT UNIVERSITY The Miranda rights have been established to provide suspected criminals their rights upon being arrested. By being read these rights, the criminals know what they are entitled to, such as the right to remain silent and to obtaining an attorney (Prentzas, 2005). However, in recent years many terrorist suspects have not been read these rights and it has come to the point that many people, lawmakers and officials believe that they should not be entitled to the rights that are drawn out in the Miranda warnings. As these terrorist suspects are innocent until proven guilty, are no different than any other criminals, and have the Fifth and Sixth Amendments backing them up, they should
For example, a person speeding over the posted speed limit would not need to be sent to prison like a person who murders someone. The Utilitarian perspective is that of whatever results in the greater good for the greatest number of people is what is right. Punishment can only be justified, according to the Utilitarian perspective, under two circumstances. The first-way punishment is justified is if the pain and suffering of the criminal are outweighed by the benefits of punishment. The second-way punishment is justified is if the benefits of punishing them cannot be with less suffering or at a lower cost to those being punished.
In the context of sexual assault, inadvertent recklessness is part of the mens rea, when the prosecution determine the existence of the mens rea, he or she would have to think about advertent recklessness and inadvertent recklessness. If either of the element exist, there is a mens rea and therefore the person is guilty of the offence and can be convicted. However, in the context of indecent assault, it is more difficult to prove advertent recklessness and inadvertent recklessness. Sections 61L and 61N of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) did not mention anything about recklessness. It is possible to commit an act of indecency recklessly and it is shown in the judgment of two cases.
The defence of insanity is unusual in a number of ways. First, if successfully raised it will not result in an unqualified acquittal, but rather a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Upon such verdict, the court has a wide-ranging dispositive discretion which includes hospital order, guardianship, absolute discharge and supervision. Before 1991 the only power available was mandatory indefinite committal to a mental hospital at the Home Secretary’s discretion. The case law contains a number of instances of defendants relying upon non-insane automatism, who changed their plea to guilty upon the trial judge
Thus, they are sentenced to one year’s imprisonment each. According to section 405, criminal breach of trust is where one is entrusted with property solely or jointly with another, dishonestly tempt, took or use for their own use in violation where such trust is to be discharged as a lawful contract, either expressly or
But this is not the only course open. The nature of the offence and other circumstances in a given case may be such that quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case, it is open to the Court to make such other appropriate order—including an order to conclude the trial within a fixed time where the trial is not concluded or reducing the sentence where the trial has concluded—as may be deemed just and equitable in the circumstances of the
"The burden of proof of provocation and self-defence lies on the accused person sees Gabriel v. State (1989) col. 22 NSCC pt. 111 p. 349 by section 286 of the Criminal Code when a person is unlawfully assaulted and he did not provoke the assault the law expects him to defend himself. He is expected to use such force on his assailant as would be reasonable to make an effective defence. For example if A slaps B and B defends himself by shooting A with a gun, that would be a disproportionate response to an unprovoked assault. The defence must not be intended to cause death or grievous harm.