Civil Law: The Law Of Tort

This is a critical element of a crime in the sense that the occurrence of a criminal offense is either voluntary or purposeful. A crime act usually comes from what is popularly referred to as ancient maxim that is the “act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty.” As such, it is required that for on to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused not only committed the particular offense (actus reus) but also that the crime was committed with the sole intention of committing the crime (the defendant had the mens rea when committing the crime. (Karlen H. Peter

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.

If the laws they create and impose are all morally just then there is no problem with citizens following the laws when there aren’t any morally ambiguous laws. Look at the story of Antigone for this concept, in Antigone the king enforces a law that morally does not seem right. Because of this, Antigone refuses to follow the law, and the king even goes through many measures to not punish her. A society with any citizens not following the laws, and the authority not punishing them for that crime means that they are not a legitimate authority. It is not enough for an authority just to be able to get people to blindly follow the laws, but those laws must be morally right and the people in understanding of

Furthermore, the need of a retributive action can even reflect the opinion that punishment for heinous crimes has value in itself, this means that there is a fundamental value in prosecuting those guilty for gross atrocities. According to this point, punishment is not requested to serve any specific practical purpose. Another explanation is that retribution is justified by its own utility, in the sense that punishing the criminals is a useful way to achieve the international criminal regime’s goals, such as reconciliation, individuation of guilt, historical documentation and deterrence (Woods, 2012). However, retribution is based on the

Non-compliance of any of the criteria would mean that it is not law. Retroactivity can't be justified as it penalizes an individual for a crime which is not a crime before the passing of the law. Based on internal morality of law, Fuller stated that “retroactive law is not a law at all.” The same goes to the predecessor's law for not complete the purposive enterprise. Accordingly, in Fuller's view the predecessor law of conceding immunity would be invalid and there is no need for the enactment of a law retrospectively.

Introduction The term of remoteness refers to legal test of causation that is used to determining the types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which may be compensated by a damages award. In another word, remoteness is a set of rules in both tort and contract, which limits the amount of compensatory damages for a wrong. We can refer to the case of Hadley v. Baxendale where Baron Sir Edward Hall Alderson had declined in allowing Hadley to recover his lost profits in this case, holding that Baxendale could only be held liable for losses that were generally foreseeable, or if Hadley had mentioned his special circumstances in advance.

Thus, the delinquent committing the act rationalizes that since there is no body of rules for either themselves or for their organizations then there is no criminal intent. They do not believe they have committed a delinquent act against the legal system even if they think what they did was wrong. The five techniques of neutralization therefore hit on the denial of responsibility, The denial of injury, the denial of the victim, the condemnation of the condemners and lastly the appeal to higher loyalties. (Sykes, et al,

The accused may know that he never had any mens rea but it is tough for him to prove the absence of the same. Taking the earlier example of a person being accused for stalking a woman through her facoobok profile, the accused may know he doesn’t have any mens rea but there is no way, guidelines or standards with the help of which he can prove there wasn’t any malicious intent.. Secondly the prosecution that has greater access to resources than the accused to prove both actus reus as well as mens rea to establish guilt of the former.

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Even he recognized that blatant originalism truly doesn’t work. Simultaneously, non-originalism can run into the problem of over-extrapolation and judicial legislation, a power the framers specifically did not want the Judicial Branch to have.

What is duty of care in this context? It is the responsibility to avoid careless actions that could cause harm to one or more persons. Secondly, the plaintiff bears the onus to prove that the defendant failed to succumb to the proper standard of care that a reasonable person would have provided in a similar situation. Standard of care is a way of measuring how much care one person owes another. For example, doctors or nurses, have a high standard of care toward others than the reasonable person.

The Supreme Court can and will take down any state rulings that interfere in foreign affairs. If an unavoidable clash happens between state and federal law, then the state law is said to be obstructed by federal law. That Congress has not preempted the states from acting in this realm does not, however, mean that the Constitution itself is also silent. In a handful of cases the Supreme Court has held that there exists a “dormant foreign affairs power” that resides exclusively within the federal government — even though Congress has said nothing. Pursuant to this doctrine, the Court has struck down state statutes that intrude into that sphere of foreign affairs which the Constitution entrusts solely to the president and the Congress.

It is not rational to allow governments to ban certain expressions because they are not appealing to some people. If such an act is allowed, than freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the 1st Amendment becomes useless, and that every material could be banned based on this test. People cannot be punished for expressing their views just because those views might not be appealing to some judge or jury (O`Brien, 508).

As Americans we are not subject to dictatorship; someone having complete authority over our lives. In fact, The United States of America gets praised for not being a communist country. The government does not control every aspect of society but Tort Reform challenges the idea of Americans free will and put a cap on the compensation that is legally and morally right for the sake of big business corporations. Tort Reform is the complete opposite of a taboo topic. Tort reform is such a controversial topic that is still talked about in the newspaper and other social media outlets even today.