A Case Study of Criminal Law
A Case Study of Criminal Law
Criminal laws relate to the rules and regulations for handling criminal acts like social conducts, harming, threatening, or endangering one’s health, safety, moral and/or people’s welfare. Unlike civil laws which emphasize the dispute resolution and compensation of the victim, criminal laws punish the law breakers (Duff, 2010). Criminal law is unique and distinctive for handling crimes with potentially grave penalties and/or sanctions. Overall, there are five objectives of imposing grave criminal penalties or punishment for the violation of criminal laws. These include retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Ideally, retribution makes criminals suffer in some way; therefore, it has been severally used to impose unpleasant sufferance to criminals. On the other hand, deterrence imposes sufficient penalty against criminals to discourage them from repeating the criminal offence (Ashworth, 2013). In addition, incapacitation strategy is designed to keep criminal offenders away from the society thus protecting the public from criminal misconduct. Alternatively, rehabilitation strategy can be employed on criminals thereby transforming them to be a useful part of the society. However, handling criminal cases require both the prosecution and complainant’s defense to prove the offense. The offended in a criminal case must provide evidence through the defense to prove the involvement in criminal activity before criminal conviction. The moment the offended fails to provide evidence of the committed criminal activity and the judicial system gives a conviction; the accused would be convicted of crimes that he/she did not commit (Tewksbury & Worley, 2013). Similarly, the criminal offences reportedly committed by Adams in liaison with his other friends including Barry, Charles, and Dave must be proved by the court of law. Therefore, all the parties involved in Adams’ criminal case have the obligation to provide impeccable proof and evidence linking Adam and his group with the planning and execution of criminal offences. Adams and his co-accused are culpable to various offences including burglary, murder, manslaughter, theft, and fraud since this can be proved by the court of law based on the evidences provided. The Nature of Actus Reus Crimes
Ideally, Adams and his team face criminal offences which when proved beyond a reasonable doubt leads to the pronouncing of criminal liability. The mens reus (guilty act) in combination with the actus reus (guilty mind) culminates into a criminal offence liability law (Ashworth & Horder, 2013). The laws are being practiced in different countries including, but not limited to England, Pakistan, US, Colombia Ireland, Canada, South Africa, and Wales. Generally, there are many versions of guilty minds for the acts of crimes; this can either be involuntary and voluntary movements. According to the American Supreme Court, a Californian law interpretation institution once ruled that drug addicts were not supposed to be convicted of a criminal offence. The court argued that the mere fact of being on drugs could not be categorized as an act thus cannot be treated as a criminal offence. Therefore the Supreme Court termed the conviction the Californian drug addict as unconstitutional (Martin, 2013). Although lawyers and law firms find the expression of actus reus convenient, it has been termed as misleading in one way or another. Ordinarily, criminal act makes the term actus reus universally acceptable. However, the law does not just entail the criminal, but all the external factors/elements making leading to an offence. This is because there are criminal offences that can be committed without acts thus actus reus (Martin, 2013). Therefore, criminal conduct has been the most relevant, wide, and satisfactorily used to cover all aspects of criminal offences including the omission...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document