As there is no clear victim in this case the principle of harm will not be applicable here and would not be considered as an act that can be criminalised. This paper is about whether a victimless crime can be criminalised. Various theorists have argued in favour and against the criminalisation process. The argument against criminalisation is mainly on the violation of the individual autonomy of a person, where he will be criminalised for an act that he did as a part of exercising his autonomy and has not affected any other person in the process. On the other hand, one argument from the side favouring criminalization is that if such acts are not criminalised then they may cause social harm.
In an article about lethal injection, the author states,“The current use of lethal injections constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution” (Lethal Injection). The government bases many things off of the constitution, yet they fail to see how unconstitutional lethal injection is. Secondly, criminals are often left suffering after
Deviance is considered a vagrant form of human activity, moving outside the more orderly currents of social life” (Erikson, 2013). Labeling theory is a major factor in criminal behavior. This theory gives insight on what can make an individual attracted to criminal behavior, opposed to wise decisions and acceptable behaviors. Kurbin shares with his readers that “ In contrast, labeling theory adopts a “ relativist” definition, assuming that nothing about a given behavior automatically makes it deviant. In other words, deviance is not a property of behavior, but rather that result of how others regard that behavior” (Chris E. Kubrin,
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.
Criminal accountability refers to the responsibility taken for one 's actions when a crime is committed, these crimes may include sexual abuses, theft and murder. Accountability is intended to make sure every crime is taken under prosecution to maintain peace and equality in the country, however, the accountability of one that works within the UN body or with the government remains unclear due to many factors such as immunity, which exempts the criminal from being punished for the crimes they have committed. This is a major problem as it is biased and lacks justice to the violated victims, therefore, it must be taken under extreme deliberation in order to bring peace and exclude discrimination. Iraq has taken extreme care to amend and implement the “Penal Code”, which is a code that aims to categories criminal offences and adopt legal legislations to develop punishments for all the types of possible crimes. The most recent amendment to Iraq’s Penal Code 111 of 1969 was “The Provisional Authority Order No.
Why We Punish & Different Ways Criminals are Punished Why does the criminal justice system of America punish criminals? The answer lies in the words “justice.” The term justice can be interpreted in many ways. Criminals are punished to: make people abide the laws of their country and state, put an end to illegal activity that could be harmful to themselves or the community, protect the public from evil, prevent crime from rising in certain areas. These are just some of the reasons why criminals are punished. There are also different approaches to punishing criminals such as: sentences that fit the crime, community service, the death penalty, and rehabilitation.
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.
Most definitions of crime emphasize that one crucial and distinguishing characteristics of crime is that it may be followed by punishment. Therefore, no person including a corporation may be held criminally liable, unless the act complained of is defined as an offence, and the punishment is stated. Crimes can be divided into two categories and the essential elements of an actus reus depend on which of these two species of crime one is dealing with. First, there are crimes known as conduct crimes where the external elements required are the prohibited conduct itself. Thus the actus reus of the offence of reckless driving is simply driving a motor vehicle on the road’ no harm, no consequence of that reckless driving need be established.
This principle determines that the criminal law of a country applies to acts that was done abroad, if therefore of particular interest especially interests are violated outside the territory of the country. In here, is not about to protect individual interest or certain people interest, but the national interest or the interest of the wider public. If people become victims of Indonesia in the territory of other States, committed by a stranger, then Indonesia criminal law does not apply. Entrusted to each State to enforce the law in its own