Just like other intentional torts, intention is required in false imprisonment and is a very important element. Carelessness is not enough, the defendant may have acted with a purpose to cause the confinement, or with substantial certainty that his acts will cause it. Second, the defendant’s intention must cause confinement of the plaintiff. The essence of the tort is restraint of the plaintiff’s freedom of movement, so they must establish confinement. It must be noted that blocking the plaintiff’s way will not amount to false imprisonment, as long as a reasonable alternate route is available.
It is only when we can show direct harm to rights, which will almost always mean when an attack is made against a specific individual or a small group of persons, that it is legitimate to impose a sanction. One response is to suggest that the harm principle can be defined in a less stringent manner than Mill 's formulation. This is a complicated issue that I cannot delve into here except to say that Mill does not seem to be significantly concerned with the potential dangers of psychological harm.
To argue that capital punishment is justified, one must initially state the possible objectives of the policy of capital punishment: revenge, retribution, general deterrence and specific deterrence. Some objectives of punishment--for instance, rehabilitation--do not apply. However, out of all those that do apply, one of them has the most benefit to the society: general deterrence. Specific deterrence means simply preventing the particular criminal from commiting more crimes. The death penalty achieves this objective, but more impressive is how it deters future crime by other criminals.
The defendant may be criminally liable for omitting to act provided that the crime is one which may be committed by omission and the defendant is in breach of some legal duty to act. It is generally believed by some theorists that omission liability plays an insignificant role in the criminal law and there are others who suggest that the scope of omission liability should be widened to include a wide range of conduct that are subject to criminal sanctions. Also, there is concerns that how should such liability be constructed, for example, would it unfairly penalized an innocent passer-by? The modern legal system tends to adopt the concept of ‘duty to act’, whereby it is an offence if a person who has a duty to act failed to act in a required state. One can debate whether (and to what degree) duties of compassion and solidarity exist between citizens, and whether the state should punish their violation.
For that purpose it is the duty of prosecution to prove that guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of the doubt goes to the accused. But if the guilt is admitted by the accused then there is no need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and sentence can be awarded according. But in the modern era, the punishment to the accused must be awarded keeping in the reformation and rehabilitation. In other words the rights of the accused are also given due importance.
However, the use of such discretionary powers should be limited to avoid occurrence of preferential treatment. The use of these powers should only be limited to minor offenses where the burden of enforcing the law is not appropriate to the situation. The particular offenses where police discretion is appropriate include minor traffic offenses, minor cases involving juveniles, domestic situations and minor drug offenses (Tilley, and Charles 172). An example of where discretionary police power can
In ordinary language, the term crime denotes an unlawful act punishable by a state. The term "crime" does not, in modern criminal law, have any simple and universally accepted definition,] though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes. The most popular view is that crime is a category created by law; in other words, something is a crime if declared as such by the relevant and applicable law. One proposed definition is that a crime or offence (or criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some individual or individuals but also to a community, society or the state ("a public wrong"). Such acts are forbidden and punishable by law.
Classicists find that the choice to commit a crime by the criminal is “a voluntary decision” , positivism supposed that the option to offend is "beyond the offender’s control" (Cross, 2012: 71). It can be said that classical thinkers did not consider another factors beyond internal factors. But, it is need to draw the attention that this thesis contained just some rights as classical consider the phenomenon of occurrence criminality and the ways in which it can be combated much more than the factors which can motivated a person to become the offender by committing a crime. They shaped a theory which proposed that every human being has own freedom of choices and he is entirely responsible for his decisions. Classical thought did not focus on the offender much, they had a simple and brief theory which has not been developed as it has been in regard to positivism which focused on internal and external factors (Roufa, 2017).
• Social taboos and stigma surrounding certain crimes and social alienation which results when cases are publicised. • Trepidation and few of the complexity of the criminal justice system and of its agents. Non-availability of translators and lack of communication resulting from legation designed to teach an agreement when you and the other side have some interest that are shared and others that are opposed. ADR has got a lot of benefits for parties facing heavy burdens of conflict and violence compared to Court, Regarding the following advantages: • A single procedure - Through ADR, the parties can agree to resolve in a single procedure a dispute involving intellectual property that is protected in a number of different countries, thereby avoiding the expense and complexity of multi-jurisdictional litigation, and the risk of inconsistent results. • Party autonomy - Because of its private nature, ADR affords parties the opportunity to exercise greater control over the way their dispute is resolved than would be the case in court litigation.
In some instances, the term is used as an alternative phrase for misdemeanor, while in other cases, petty crimes are a separate category of offenses. In either instance, a petty crime can refer to both criminal offenses and civil infractions. Petty crimes are usually characterized by maximum punishments. This means that a judge generally cannot order fines that exceed certain amounts, and the length of time that a person may be incarcerated is often limited. In some instances, a court may even be restricted from ordering any incarceration for a petty