Subjects of Criminal Law

Subjects of Criminal Law

 

 

 

Introduction

Criminal law refers to the body of the legal system that focuses on the control, management, and punishment of criminal acts within the society or at the international level. The main purpose of the criminal law is to regulate social conduct that could threat, harm, and endanger the healthy and safety of the humanity thus reducing the level of social welfare[1]. The concept of the criminal law also constitutes the action or punishment against individuals who go against or violates the laws according to the constitution. The main difference between the criminal law and the civil law is the extent of their focus in relation to the achievement of the objective in reduction of criminal acts within the society. Civil laws focus on the provision of adequate resolution to the aspect of disputes thus involvement of the compensation of the victims rather than the actual act of punishment for the crime[2].

Objectives of Criminal Law Enforcement

In the punishment of the criminals for the crimes committed within the society, there are five crucial objectives applicable in the enforcement of criminal law. The attorney has the ability and capacity to defend the offenders against the objectives of the enforcement of the criminal laws to curb crime thus enhances the societal welfare. These objectives include:

Retribution

This objective of the enforcement of the criminal laws indicates that the offenders must experience particular aspect of suffering[3]. This is the most common objective among the five crucial aspects of the enforcement of the criminal laws. The attorney has the obligation to put the offender in an unpleasant situation with the aim of balancing the scales. This is because offenders are seen to obtain the upper hand in the act of committing a crime.

Deterrence

The concept of individual deterrence is applicable for particular criminals within the society[4]. The main purpose of this objective is to discourage the essence of criminal activities in the United States and any other nation of the application. The suffering or penalty to the offenders helps to deter some society members from committing similar crimes or related criminal activities.

Incapacitation

This objective operates towards minimization of the public contact by the criminals with the aim of protecting the public from the act of delinquency[5]. In most cases, the United States adopts and implements the concept of prisons to apply this objective in the enforcement of the criminal laws. In other states, there is also the application of the death penalty and banishment to serve similar objective of incapacitation.

Rehabilitation

The main purpose of this objective is to contribute towards the transforming of the criminals into productive or useful entities within the society[6]. This objective acts towards enlightening the criminals on their wrong actions thus minimization of the extent of criminal activities within the society.

Restitution

This is the application of victim-oriented theory in handling criminal activities within the society. The main purpose of this objective is to apply authority in handling the damage inflicted by the criminals in relation to the innocent victims[7]. This objective operates effectively and efficiently in the presence of other four objectives in the enforcement of the criminal laws.

Rule of Criminal Responsibility

According to the United States’ criminal laws, a person is not considered guilty of any offence with the exception of when his or her conduct is the actual or proximate cause of the social or psychological harm to the society[8]. The conduct of an individual must integrate the voluntary act under the influence of the culpable state of mind. This refers to the rule of criminal responsibility under the criminal laws. It is the duty of the authority or the arm of the government to prove that all the aspects co-existed at the time thus the determination of the culpability in relation to each element. This indicates that the determination of a criminal offence requires the concurrence of the events at the crime.

Voluntary Act (Actus Reus)

The determination of the some crimes occurs in relation to the terms of the act[9]. For instance, the act of committing rape or burglary offences is determined through the defined terms of the act. In case of other crimes that do not particularize the requisites acts, there is the process of conviction through the general concept of the criminal act or homicide. In order for an act to be valid and enforceable, it must demonstrate two valuable components: conscious and volitional. Volitional indicate that the act must have the will to be executed by the legal arm of the government. Conscious aspect of the act relates to the awareness of the act in relation to the present demands thus an asset to the criminal laws. The process of prosecution during the enforcement of the criminal laws must ensure the essence of three concepts: duty to act, Mens rea, and an omission. An omission refers to the failure to act thus making an individual guilty of failing to act in certain conditions.

Mens Rea (Mental State)

The enforcement of the criminal law must consider the mental state of the offender before the application of the objectives of the criminal laws by the judicial arm of the government[10]. One of the common concepts of the mental state is the intention. Intention refers to the desire of an individual to commit a crime or cause harm to the innocent victims within the society. There is a clear distinction between the terms motive and intent according to the United States criminal law. Intent only focuses on the purpose of an individual to commit a crime while motive inquires the reasons behind the act of the criminal offense. There is also a clear distinction between the general and specific intent in the enforcement of the criminal laws within the United States. General intent is the act of committing criminal activity in relation to undetermined occasion. The only state of mind is the intent with reference to committing acts determining the crime. Such acts include statutory rape or rape cases within the society. Specific intent refers to the particular mental element beyond voluntary state in the essence of a criminal act. Transferred intent refers act of inflicting harm to a third party in case the offender did have the intent to commit a crime or harm to certain individuals.

Example of Criminal Law Cases

Ford vs. State[11]

Citation: 330 Md. 682, 625 A. 2d 983, 1993 Md.

Fact:

Appellant has the case to answer in the law courts following the acts of throwing landscaping rocks at a car within the context of a busy highway. The argument of Appellant was based on the doctrine of the transfer intent as not applicable to the case of the several injured passengers because of the act of rock throwing at the car on the busy highway. It is a fact that Appellant in the company of other youths stood by the highway and hurled rocks at cars. This led to the injury to numerous individuals and damage of cars. Appellant had to answer to 90 accounts of charges in the court of law.

Rule of Law

The concept of the transferred intent focuses on the making of the whole crime context in relation to two halves thus joining the intent and harm caused to the victims. In case of the aspect of criminal activity against the intended victim, the concept of transferred intent is in applicable.

Issue

The main issue in this case is the effective application of the doctrine of the transferred intent in relation to determining the criminal act by Appellant.

Held

Affirmed

The concept of the transferred intent is extremely applicable in the particular intent towards causing specific type of harm. The doctrine is in applicable in case the crime is committed against the intended victim.

Discussion

The decision of the court was based on the clear distinction between the concept of transferred intent and concurrent intent. The case demonstrated that the defendant had the specific intent in harming targeted victims and concurrent intent of causing harm to others in achieving the initial intent. With respect to the crime of assault and intent to maim, in case of harmed victims, the concept of transferred intent does not apply. This case is an illustration of the concept of the criminal law to ensure that there is justice and fairness in the trials before the law courts. This contributes towards the minimization of conflicts within the society.

Regina vs. Cunningham[12]

Citation: 239 Fed. Appx. 839, 2007 U.S App.

Facts:

The case involved a person who stole a gas meter. The defendant was seen by a lady in the next flat while committing the criminal act. The defendant proclaimed that he did not intend to kill the woman.

Holding:

The ruling of the court acquitted the defendant of the charges before the court. This was because of the lack of the mental state (mens rea) in relation to the administration of the poison to kill the woman. Cunningham only intended to steal the gas meter.

Significance

In case, the outcome of the criminal activity is inadvertent, thus no intent to cause harm, the legal system of the United States lacks capacity to hold the criminal accountable for the result. This is a reflection of harmonious living through promotion of fairness and equality in the context of the rule of law.

United States vs. Jewell[13]

Citation: 130 S. Ct. 3297; 176 L. Ed. 2d 1188; 2010 U.S.78 U.S.L.W. 3667

Summary

Appellant argues that he did not have the requisite mental state while driving into the United States trafficking drugs. This is based on the lack of knowledge in relation to the drugs.

Rule of law

The concept of willful blindness is equated to knowledge under the rule of law.

Facts

Appellant entered the borders of the United States while driving a car with approximately 110 pounds of Marijuana within the compartment of the car. Appellant argued that he did not know about the drugs found in the vehicle.

Issue

Determination of the willful ignorance or blindness in the constitution of knowingly in relation to the statute in context was the main issue of the court of appeal.

Holding: Affirmed

Discussion/Significance

The ruling of the court indicated that the interpretation by the defendant was an act of avoiding the sanctions of the statute thus violation of the substance. In this case, the defendant could not justify the act of being extremely blind of the crime because of the mental state constituting positive knowledge.

Impacts of the criminal law

Criminal law represents one of the major part of law to affects the existing institution and businesses in either a direct or an indirect way. This branch of law regulates the social conduct in the society thereby posing more effect on the way individuals and institution interacts to one another. The criminal law also affects businesses especially in the way they compete with others in the market. Individuals, businesses and institution will always meet this law in their everyday operation because if forms part of most activities that going on in the states. The existing states have now experienced criminal law as part of the society besides acting as the regulator of any practices. Consequently, discussing the impacts of criminal law on individuals will involve looking at the nature and the scope of the law in the society besides determining whether it is intrusive[14]. The major impacts of criminal law include allowing regulating freedom, restricting liberty and liberty on omissions.

Impacts on freedom

Although individuals in the society always get to enjoy their freedom within their wishes in life, there must be some regulatory that controls enforces the freedom. The main restraints of freedom in the modern society are crime, usually making an individual to feel as if he or she does not belong to the society. The criminal law forms the basis for the regulation of the freedom available for the individuals through the criminal justice system. The individuals have the freedom to do of choosing what is good for them while leaving out anything detrimental, without questioning from the third party. This means that the presence of the criminal law allows the individuals in the society to enjoy their freedom provided they (individuals) act within the moral levels. In order to ensure that the individuals enjoy their freedom, the criminal justice system, acting, as the drivers of the criminal law, have to ensure that there is no externality interfering with the individuals (especially crimes). Incapacitation, which is one of the objectives of criminal law, ensures that the criminal justice system keeps away the criminals who may interfere with the freedom of the individual. The action of keeping away the criminals opened the doors for the establishment of prisons where the criminals can stay and have no effect on the individuals in the society. Through keeping away the criminals, the criminal justice system ensures that it has reduced the constraints that the individuals may face in the society. Further, even though an individual may be having the freedom of speech, he is not to go to the extent of using this to abuse other individuals. The criminal justice system will take action against this individual, without considering the freedom of speech, since he or she has violated the rights of the other individual. The criminal law ensures that everyone in the society has his own peace, allowing them to exercise well there freedom. The case which illustrates the impact was that of People v. Roberts, 2 Cal.4th 271 (1992)

Defendant prisoner led other prisoners to attack inmate Gardner, who dazed and without reason grabbed a knife from the floor, stumbled up stairs, and reflexively stabbed Officer Patch who tried to stop him. Are defendant’s actions the proximate cause of death? Held Only if it is foreseeable that that someone in the victim’s state could cause a death. The intervening actor must not be a free moral agent, and the intervening act must occur within a reasonable time period.

In this case, the defendant prisoners act as the restraint for freedom to the inmate Gardner because they made him to run away from his comfort. The restraint triggered by the defendant is what leads the inmate Gardner into killing the officer. The defendants were responsible for the death of the officer and were to suffer the consequences. This illustrates that the criminal law will always act towards ensuring that every individual in the society enjoys his freedom without the distraction from third party; otherwise, the third party would have to be answerable to the criminal justice system.

Restriction on liberty

Criminal law may also have impact on the liberty of an individual as it works towards controlling moral levels in the society. Any action by an individual will have to be within the moral standards otherwise it will be disrespect to the law. This implies that the criminal law always exercises restrictions on the actions of the individuals. Debate has always arisen on why the criminal law should always involve itself in the deeds of an individual, which may be affecting only the individuals. For instance, the criminal law always restricts an individual from drug use such as cocaine even though the adverse effects of the drugs may only be on the individuals. Individual under addiction will feel that the criminal justice system is restricting him from enjoying the freedom of doing what pleases him[15]. The argument is that the incidence of an individual smoking is just the same with an individual taking tea hence the criminal law should treat both cases in the same way. This means that the criminal law comes out as involved so much in the personal lives of individuals, something that many have detested. In a case involving Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)

Georgia man asserting that Georgia law prohibiting sodomy is unconstituational. Whether it is constitutional for a state legislature to restrict a person’s sexual activity performed in private. Held A state has a right to criminalize actions it thinks are immoral and unacceptable.

The Georgia man feels that the sexual activity can only be detrimental to individual’s life consequently there is no need for the criminal to limit an individual from sodomy. Georgia man may have supported his opinion that sodomy is one of the ways that an individual may use to get money while not affecting any third party in any way. An individual may argue that the criminal law poses a misplaced restriction since a person has the right to use his or her body in whatever way he or she feels like. However, the Georgia man fails in his quest because sodomy does not meet the moral levels required by the states. The states require any individual living within always to act according to the provided moral standards; hence, an individual smoking will be held, in some states, in the court of law because of the prohibition of the actions. This case is enough illustration of the way in which the criminal law can prohibit the liberty of an individual. Even though an individual may take an action as beneficial to himself, he or she would have to be responsible to the criminal law.

Impact on the activity of individuals

The criminal law also has effects on the way individuals should behave towards certain activities in the society. The criminal law exercises a coercive force to make people to act positively towards acts in a certain way[16]. Even though an individual may feel that the criminal law is going against his or her morals, it would be against the law if he or she fails to act as stated by the criminal law. For instance, in some States, an individual will be held responsible for any road traffic accidents that occur without him or her reporting to the police. Provided, a citizen becomes aware of the occurrence he or she would need to report to the police immediately. This action by the criminal justice system may be against the freedom of an individual especially when the he or she was not concerned by the latter (the occurrence). This coercive force by the criminal law makes individuals to feel insecure and may go into hiding in order not to be considered as present. It may make the individuals to avoid important events because of the suspicion that the criminal justice system will consider them as having committed a criminal offence, provided there is any negative occurrence. This is enough evidence that the criminal law is driver to liability for omissions since the citizens can receive punishment because of not acting in the way prescribed. For instance, the case of R v Evans [2009] EWCA Crim 650

The victim was a drug addict. Her half sister obtained drugs from a dealer and supplied them to the victim. The victim overdosed and died. Evans was charged and convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. The Court of Appeal held that Evans owed a duty of care to the victim to seek help for her. The duty owed was to counteract the situation, which Evans had created by supplying the drugs. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

In this case, Evans was charged because of not taking care of the victim, even though he had no attachment to the victim. The victim had died because of taking drugs that he had bought hence an individual Evans may have argued that transactions had ended. This is indifferent to the provision by the criminal law that required Evans to continue caring for the victim not considering the end of the transaction. The duty of taking care was to compensate for Evans action of selling the drugs to the victim. This implies that the criminal justice system required Evans to act in way that is positive even though he had ceased carrying a transaction with the victim.

Conclusion

The criminal law regulates the social conduct in the society thereby posing more effect on the way individuals and institution interacts to one another. The impacts of criminal law can have three categories, that is, impact on freedom, restriction on liberty and the impacts on the activity of individuals. Criminal law may force an individual into performing a certain act even though it may be against the will of the latter hence the name given to it, coercive force. The criminal law is important in the society since it helps in regulating crimes in the community, which in turn creates freedom for the society members. It helps in removing the restraints existing in the society while maintaining the moral standards.

Bibliographies

1. LAFAVE, WAYNE R. Modern Criminal Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions (St. Paul, Minn: Thomson/West, 2006).
2. POLLOCK, JOYCELYN M. Criminal Law (Waltham, MA: Anderson, 2013).
3. KADISH, SANFORD H. Casenote Legal Briefs: Keyed to Courses Using Kadish, Schulhofer, and Steiker’s Criminal Law and Its Processes,( 8th Edition. New York: Aspen Pub, 2007)
4. SCHEB, JOHN M, Criminal Law and Procedure (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011).
5. BRODY, DAVID C, JAMES R. ACKER, AND WAYNE A. LOGAN. Criminal Law (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2000).
6. WILSON, GARRET, 2003. Criminal Law Cases. Retrieved from: http://www.garretwilson.com/education/institutions/usf/law/criminal/cases.html
7. HUSAK, D. N. Overcriminalization: the limits of the criminal law. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007).
8. CLAES, E. Privacy and the criminal law. (Antwerpen, Intersentia 2006).
9. BASSIOUNI, M. C. (1999). Crimes against humanity in international criminal law. (The Hague Kluwer Law Internat, 1999).
10. PATTERSON, D. M. . A companion to philosophy of law and legal theory. (Chichester, West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). http://www.blackwellreference.com/subscriber/uid=3/book?id=g9781405170062_9781405170062.
11. Law Teacher. Criminal Law Cases. Retrieved from: http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/criminallawcases.php#ixzz2I2oC9CUO

 

 

 

 

 

1. [1] Logan Wayne A. Brody, David C, and James R. Acker, Criminal Law (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2000).

[2] Logan Wayne A. Brody, David C, and James R. Acker, Criminal Law (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2000).

[3] Logan Wayne A. Brody, David C, and James R. Acker, Criminal Law (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2000).

[4] Logan Wayne A. Brody, David C, and James R. Acker, Criminal Law (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2000).

[5] Logan Wayne A. Brody, David C, and James R. Acker, Criminal Law (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2000).

[6] Logan Wayne A. Brody, David C, and James R. Acker, Criminal Law (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2000).

[7] Logan Wayne A. Brody, David C, and James R. Acker, Criminal Law (Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2000).

1. [8] R. Wayne Lafave,. Modern Criminal Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions (St. Paul, Minn: Thomson/West, 2006).

 

[9] R. Wayne Lafave,. Modern Criminal Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions (St. Paul, Minn: Thomson/West, 2006).

[10] R. Wayne Lafave,. Modern Criminal Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions (St. Paul, Minn: Thomson/West, 2006).

1. [11]M. John Scheb, Criminal Law and Procedure (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011).

 

1. [12] H. Sanford Kadish, Casenote Legal Briefs: Keyed to Courses Using Kadish, Schulhofer, and Steiker’s Criminal Law and Its Processes,( 8th Edition. New York: Aspen Pub, 2007)

1. [13] M Joycelyn Pollock,. Criminal Law (Waltham, MA: Anderson, 2013).

 

[14] Claes, E. Privacy and the criminal law. (Antwerpen [u.a.], Intersentia, 2006).

[15] Patterson, D. M.. A companion to philosophy of law and legal theory. (Chichester, West Sussex, Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).

[16] Husak, D. N. Overcriminalization: the limits of the criminal law. (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007).