Criminal Law Free Essays

Mens Rea refers to the guilty mind required for criminal liability. Intention and recklessness are the two forms of Mens Rea that are part of most offences and have been the subject of judicial scrutiny. There is a vast volume of case law on intention and recklessness which demonstrates the problems that courts have had in perfecting an appropriate definition. We will write a custom essay sample on Criminal Law or any similar topic only for you Order Now Mens Rea is concerned with the defendants state of mind at the time of the Actus Reus. It is difficult to prove what was in someones mind which partially explains why the courts struggle with these words. Intention is the most culpable form of mens Rea. This is because it is more blameworthy to cause harm deliberately (intention) than it is to do so carelessly (recklessness). Therefore intention is used in more serious offences. Murder requires intention to kill or cause GBH which sets it apart from other, less capable, forms of homicide. There is normally no need for an elaborate definition of intention in order to decide whether an Actus Reus was intended. A few exceptional situations may present difficulty , but usually the analysis will be intuitively obvious. â€Å"The general legal opinion is that ‘intention’ cannot be satisfactorily defined and does not need a definition, since everybody knows what it means†. Lord Bridge in R v Moloney [1985] AC 905, 926 states that â€Å"the golden rule should be that the judge should avoid any elaboration paraphrase of what is meant by intent, and leave it to the jury’s good sense to decide whether the accused acted with the necessary intent†. This is where the first form of intention, direct intention, falls under. Direct intention corresponds with the everyday meaning of intention. A person who has causing death as his aim, purpose or goal has direct intention to kill. It was defined in Mohan [1976] as ‘a decision to bring about the commission of an offence, no matter whether the defendant desired the consequences of his act or not. Some cases are difficult which means that we do sometimes need guidelines about what intention means. The legal territory of intention comprises two alternative categories. D may be found to have intended the Actus Reus if I) D intended the Actus Reus in the ordinary, core sense of â€Å"intention†; or ii) D recognised that the Actus Reus was a virtually certain consequence of his actions. The first case, is the standard or core variety and largely reflects the ordinary language meaning of â€Å"intention†. In this paradigm case, D tries to bring about the relevant outcome. For whatever reason, he wants or needs to bring about that outcome, and that is why he acts as he does. By contrast, in the virtual certainty case, (ii), D does not act in order to bring about the intended outcome. He acts for other reasons. However he knows that the Actus Reus is a virtually certain consequence of his actions. Though that is not what he is trying to bring about, it is a practically inevitable concomitant. In very rare or exceptional cases, the result might not be D’s aim or purpose. In such cases, D still might legally intend the result and so further direction to the jury is needed. This is where the second form of intention comes in, indirect/oblique intention. Glanville Williams (1987) described oblique intention as something you see clearly but out the corner of your eye, a side effect that you accept as an inevitable or ‘certain’ accompaniment of your direct intent. To be able to understand oblique intention in more depth, it is important to look at the progression of the case law that aided the development of indirect intention. Moloney in the House of Lords: used ‘natural consequences ‘ to describe something that necessarily followed the defendant’s pursuit of his primary purpose. This was ambiguous as natural consequences need not be inevitable: pregnancy is a natural consequence of intercourse but it is by no means inevitable. Hancock and Shankland then addressed this ambiguity, stating that reference should be made to the degree of probability that the prohibited outcome would result from the defendant achieving his primary purpose. Their reasoning was such that, the greater the probability of the consequence, the more likely it was that the result was foreseen, then the higher the level of foreseeability of the result and the more likely it was that the result was intended. Moloney, Hancock and Shankland conflicted in their formulation of an appropriate test of oblique intention. Nedrick in the court of Appeal addressed the conflict and formulated the virtual certainty test which conveyed inevitability (Moloney) and foreseeability (Hancock and Shankland). As Nedrick lacked the authoritative status of a House of Lords decision, subsequent case law eroded the narrow virtual certainty test. In R v Woolin [1999] the defendant threw his baby in exasperation when it would not stop crying. The baby died from head injuries. It was accepted that the defendant did not intend to cause harm to the child. His conviction for murder was upheld by the court of Appeal on the basis that it was not a misdirection to explain oblique intention to the jury in terms of ‘appreciation of a substantial risk of injury’. His appeal was allowed by the House of Lords. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal in Woolin accepted a test based upon ‘substantial risk’ which created a dangerous overlap with recklessness (therefore blurring the line between murder and manslaughter). However, in R v Matthews and Alleyne ([2003] EWCA Crim 192, [2003] 2 Cr App R 30) the defendants appealed against their conviction for murder following the death of a young man (a non-swimmer) whom they had (having burgled) thrown from a bridge into a river. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, which it did not consider unsafe in the light of the evidence, but expressed concern that the Nedrick/Woolin evidential rule should not be treated as if it were a rule of law. A defendant’s foresight of virtually certain death does not automatically require the jury to find that he intended that result: it is merely (albeit often very strong evidence) from which the jury may infer intent. In conclusion, it seems that when looking at oblique intention, there can be some confusion in the courts, however in my opinion, after some progression in this area following the cases of Woolin (1999) and Matthews (2003) the law of intention is satisfactorily defined in the criminal law. How to cite Criminal Law, Papers Criminal Law Free Essays Criminal law addresses the government’s prosecution of individuals who have committed an act classified as a crime. Federal, state, and local governments categorize crime and prosecute criminals. This is the nature and purpose of law. We will write a custom essay sample on Criminal Law or any similar topic only for you Order Now Without laws, people wouldn’t know what to do. The rule of law is the belief that an orderly society must be governed by established principles (laws) and applied fairly to all of its members (basically stating that no one is above the law). For example, if the President decided that he wanted to rob a bank, he would be punished just like everyone else. There are five types of law: criminal law, civil law, administrative law, case law, and procedural law. Civil law is the branch of modern law that governs relationships between parties. Procedural law is the part of the law that specifies the methods to be used in enforcing substantive law. Administrative law is the body of regulations that governments create to control the activities of industry, business, and people. Case law is a legal principle that ensures that previous judicial decisions are authoritatively considered and incorporated into future cases. General categories of crime include: felonies, misdemeanors, offenses, treason and espionage, and inchoate offenses. Felonies are serious crimes (murder, rape, robbery, etc. ) they are punishable by death or by being imprisoned for at least a year. Misdemeanors are minor crimes like petty theft (theft of items of little value), simple assault, etc. They are punishable by a year in prison or less, or by a fine or community service. Offenses (also known as infractions) are less serious than misdemeanors like jaywalking, littering, not putting on a seatbelt, etc. They are punishable by a fine. Treason is a U. S. citizen’s actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the U. S. Espionage, similar to treason is an offense that can be committed by noncitizens to help injure the U. S. An inchoate offense is an offense not yet completed (for example, conspiracy). When a person is charged with a crime, they usually offer a defense. A defense is evidence or arguments from the accused about why they should not be charged with a crime. There are four categories of defense: 1) alibi, 2) ustifications, 3) excuses, and 4) procedural defenses. An alibi (if it can be verified) shows that the person couldn’t have done the crime because they were somewhere else or with someone else at that time. A justification (like self-defense) means the person admitted to the crime but said it was necessary to prevent something worse from happening. When the accused person offers an excuse, they’re saying that some personal condition (like being drunk) or circumstance (like just being fired) at the time influenced them, and they shouldn’t be punished. Procedural defense claims that the accused was discriminated against in the justice process or some important procedure was not properly followed in the investigation or prosecution of the crime charged. There is also a cultural defense which is a defense in which the defendant’s culture is taken into account in judging his or her culpability. Courts rarely allow this defense, but exceptions are made when groups are able to argue that their religious and cultural rights have been violated. The M’ Naghten rule (a rule for determining insanity) says that a person is not guilty of a crime if at the time of the crime the person didn’t know what they were doing or that what they were doing was wrong. Guilty but mentally ill is a verdict that states that a person can be held responsible for a criminal act even though a degree of mental illness is present. A judge can impose any sentence possible for the crime. Usually mandated psychiatric treatment is part of the sentence. Once cured, the defendant is put in general population to serve any remaining sentence. Temporary insanity is another defense. It means that the accused person claims to have only been insane at the time of the crime. If the jury agrees, the accused can go free. There are consequences to an insanity ruling however; the judge may order the defendant to undergo psychiatric treatment until cured. Since most psychiatrists are reluctant to let patients out, the defendant might stay there longer than they would’ve been in prison. Diminished capacity is a defense meaning the defendant may have a significantly impaired ability to understand the wrongfulness of the crime and to use reason or control behavior that the defendant knows is wrong. Incompetent to stand trial means as a result of mental illness, defect, or disability, the defendant cannot understand the nature of the charges and proceedings against him or her, of consulting with an attorney, and with aiding in his or her own defense. There are seven types of procedural defenses: entrapment, double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, selective prosecution, denial of a speedy trial, prosecutorial misconduct, and police fraud. Entrapment is an improper or illegal inducement to crime by enforcement agents. Double jeopardy is a common law stating a defendant cannot be tried twice for the same crime. You can read also King v Cogdon Collateral estoppel is like double jeopardy but it applies to facts that have been determined by a valid and final judgment. Selective prosecution is based on the 14th amendment’s guarantee of â€Å"equal protection of the laws. † Denial of a speedy trial is pretty much self-explanatory. Prosecutorial misconduct describes actions taken by prosecutors that give the government an unfair advantage or that prejudice the rights of a defendant or witness. When they knowingly permit false testimony or hide information that would help the defense, is prosecutorial misconduct. Police fraud suggests that evidence against a defendant had been made or planted by a police officer because of a general dislike for the defendant. All crimes are said to share certain features that, taken together make up the essence of crime: the criminal act (or actus reus), a culpable mental state (or mens rea), and a concurrence of the two. There are also five additional principles that allow us to really understand crime: 1) causation, 2) a resulting harm, 3) the principle of legality, 4) the principle of punishment, and 5) necessary attendant circumstances. All of this makes up criminal law as we know it today. How to cite Criminal Law, Papers