Criminal Liability Theory and Principles - Essay Example

Criminal Liability Theory and Principles Introduction A crime is an act or omission forbidden by law or the penal code as a violation of the general public interest. The victim of a crime is the community. Prosecution is done by government attorneys representing the community. Unlike civil wrong where a person convicted of wrong doing can pay damages or compensate for the wrong, a person who is convicted of a crime is punished (Fletcher 31). Felonies are punishable by more than one year of imprisonment. They include homicide, rape, robbery, arson and others. Misdemeanors are less serious than felonies and are punishable by fines, penalties or incarceration of less than one year. They include shop lifting and disorderly conduct. Some offenses called wobbler can be classified as felonies or misdemeanor depending on circumstance. Petty offenses or infractions are insignificant crimes involving very minor misconducts classified as violations of public welfare, an example is traffic violations. They are not punishable by incarceration but through monetary fines or community service (Fletcher 31). The basis for proving criminal liability the accused is that, the defendant is proved to have committed a guilty act with a guilty state of mind. The physical elements of such a case are called actus reus while the corresponding mental state is called mens rea. It is the prosecutions duty to prove those elements of the offense to the contentment of the jury beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the defendant is acquitted. Criminal law formulates that individuals should be punished based on the retribution they deserve as such, they are culpable if they demonstrate insufficient concern for others by choosing to cause risk or harm to others for insufficient reason and does it voluntarily (Fletcher 46). Actus reus is the physical action one takes in order to be culpable of a criminal offense, though it is possible for one to commit a crime by omission rather than an affirmative act. For example, voluntary failure to perform the legally required act of filing and paying tax. To be responsible for a crime, one must perform the legally required act for that crime. For example, the actus reus for burglary is that one must break into a roofed structure or vehicle. The voluntary action provision in actus reus recognizes that people are not responsible for actions over, which they have no control. For example, an epileptic person may have a seizure at a mall causing damage to property. Such a person is not criminally responsible (Norrie 111). Conversely, if such an individual is prohibited from driving due to the condition of epilepsy and proceeds to do so, then person will be criminally responsible if he has a seizure and loses control of the car. The provision for voluntary action is that the defendant must possess sufficient free will to exercise choice and be responsible for the act (Norrie 111). One is not culpable of a crime on grounds of thinking about the crime. The thoughts have to be acted on, and physical actions performed connected to the thoughts for one to become criminally liable. Even though actus reus involves physical acts, one may be guilty of failing to act, as such omissions are legally perceived as actions that lead to criminal liability. Omission can occur when the definition of a crime specifically designates an omission as punishable. For example, failure to file income tax or when a person has affirmative duty to act in some way, but fails to do so. Another example is a parent who fails to feed his /her child and the child dies of starvation is criminally liable due to omission of necessary care for the child constituting the actus reus of the crime (Norrie 112). Legal duty can arise from relationships like family relations imposed by law or by contractual obligation. Where this is not the case, then a person is not culpable of criminal liability even where they are obliged to act when someone’s life is in danger and fail to do so as several judicial decisions have illustrated (Norrie 112). In some cases, mere words can constitute actus reus. Such words by their offensiveness constitute threat or cause further physical actions viewed as social harm. Where and how a statement is made determines it constitutes a criminal act (Greenawalt 192). Often, context alone determines whether a statement counts as actus reus. For example, falsely yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater is criminally prosecuted as that word in the particular context would cause panic and thus satisfies actus reus requirement. Defining words as criminal acts sometimes conflicts with the First Amendment on freedom of speech, thus it is the prerogative of the law makers to balance between the rights to free speech and harm that words may cause to others (Greenawalt 32). Possession offenses criminalize possession of certain items or substances. Possession of such items makes one guilty of a crime. For example, possession of illegal drugs. Actual possession is the actus reus requirement. A guest in a place where illegal narcotics are held is not guilty of possession of the drugs and would not be found guilty of the offense of possession. The prosecutor must provide evidence that the person in question knowingly possessed the illegal item and was in control of it. Possession crimes are limited to situations where individuals would use the item to commit crime serving to reduce future social harm (Norrie 112). Motive or intent is the emotion promoting a person to act, but is not a form of mens rea required for proof of criminal culpability. The forms of mens rea included are highlighted here. Specific intent is the intention to commit a crime with intentions of doing some supplementary prospect act, or doing an act to achieve some further consequences that constitute actus reus of the offense. Common law burglary is a specific intent crime as one breaks into another’s dwelling with intent of committing a crime. If the perpetrator plans future acts of felony, then mens rea requirement is satisfied. Intent separates burglary from trespass. As such the prosecution must prove intent to commit a crime after entry. Statutory rape is a general intent crime as the perpetrator does not have specific knowledge of the child’s age (Lucia and Roberts 19). Transferable intent holds a person criminally liable even when the consequence is not the desired intent. If a perpetrator fires a gun aimed at an enemy, but the bullet misses and kills a young boy, then he is guilty under doctrine of transferable intent. By the virtue of aiming to kill, he is found to have the mens rea of intending to kill the child. Strict liability implies that individual can be arrested of a crime without having requisite mental state or intention to commit crime. For example, statutory rape requires only proof of the act of sex with a minor to secure conviction (Lucia and Roberts 19). For one to be held criminally liable one must act with one or several types of mental states. One can act purposely with respect to a result or conduct. When one wishes to act in a certain way to produce a certain result or when a person acts purposely with aspect to attendant circumstances, that is, when a person is aware of conditions that will make the intended crime possible or believes and hopes that they exist. A person can knowingly cause a result. A person can commit an act fully aware that such conduct will almost certainly cause this result or a person can act knowingly with respect to conduct and attendant circumstances, that is the person is aware of that the actions are criminal or the attendant circumstances make an otherwise legal act criminal (Morgan, Reiner and Maguire 251). A person acts negligently if the person should be aware that a substantial and unjustified risk exists or will result from the negligent conduct. Usually, the jury determines if the risk would have been taken by a reasonable person in the same situation when evaluating negligence. Juries usually look at the defendant’s perspective when deciding whether his actions created a substantial unjustified risk (Morgan, Reiner and Maguire 247). A crime requires the concurrence of two elements of mens rea and actus reus. Therefore, a prosecutor must prove that the defendant performed a voluntary act and the corresponding mental state that caused the social harm in order to convict (Morgan, Reiner and Maguire 247). Conclusion For an act to qualify as a crime it must certify both mens rea and actus reus, but in some cases, the act only need to satisfy actus reus to qualify as a crime. The essence of these requirements is to strike a balance in fair trial and criminal responsibility. \ Works cited: Greenawalt, Kent. Speech, crime, and the uses of language. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1989. Print. Norrie, Alan. Crime, Reason and History: A Critical Introduction to Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001. Print. Lucia, Zedner and Roberts, Julian. Justice Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal. Oxford: OUP Oxford. 2012. Print. Morgan, Rodney; Reiner, Robert and Maguire, Mike. The Oxford handbook of criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. Print. Fletcher, George. Basic concepts of criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. Print. Read More