Critically discuss the Labour Governments record of crime control since coming to power in 1997
Labour Government Crime Critically discuss the Labour Government’s record of crime control since coming to power in 1997 When Labour came to power in 1997, they used Tony Blair’s famous statement of four years earlier, “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”, to demonstrate their tough policies on crime. This was in contrast to the more soft approach seen to be adopted by the Conservative party at that time. However, it also meant that Labour intended to act more vigorously on preventing the causes of crime, such as poor education, lack of role models, and the break down of the familial structure. Various policies came out of this attitude, such as the zero-tolerance campaign on drug related crimes and gun crime. The government also introduced the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and dramatically increased CCTV footage across the country to help prevent crime and help solve crimes, thus addressing both crime itself and the causes of crime. Whether these initiatives made any difference to the amount of crime recorded is discussed below. Police Recorded Crime has increased steadily since the Labour Government came to power in 1997. There was one exception which was that the figures for 2004/2005 showed a 6% fall in crime compared to 2003/4. However, one should be aware that in 1998/1999 there was a change in the Home Office Counting Rules for crime. This coincides
Notes on the law on murder
Murder There are three types of unlawful homicide: murder, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The degree of seriousness applied to each offence is essentially a reflection of the defendant’s state of mind. With regard to the killing – murder is the most serious category of unlawful homicide. Definition: “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under Queen’s peace with malice aforethought”. Actus Reus of Murder (Pagett, Jordan, Smith and Blaue) The actus reus of murder simply consists of the unlawful killing of a human being under Queen’s peace. It can be broken down into three main elements: The unlawful killing – the killing must be unlawful. The victim must be a human being – normally, this will be self evident but it is murder to kill a foetus (unborn baby) because it is fully independent of its mother. Queen’s peace – any killing within England and Wales by any person. When discussing actus reus of murder, it is vital to discuss causation along with the think skull rule, and apply it back to the case. Causation is establishing a direct link between the defendant’s conduct and the consequences. The prosecution must prove that defendant’s act was both legal and factual cause of death. Factual – use the “But for” test. But for the defendants conduct, would the consequences have occurred? R v Pagett – Pagett’s
With close reference to the cases of Shaw v DPP and Knuller v DPP , Show how the law relates to morals and religion.
1/18/2012 With close reference to the cases of Shaw v DPP and Knuller v DPP , Show how the law relates to morals and religion. What is the relation of law to morality? Law’s relation to morality has been debated ever since jurisprudence itself came to be and it seems as though it is destined to remain as one of the great philosophical debates. They are mutually engaged along a course that winds through a political society’s life. Laws are generally based on the moral principles of society. Both regulate the conduct of the individual in society. They influence each other to a great extent. Laws, to be effective, must represent the moral ideas of the people. But good laws sometimes serve to rouse the moral conscience of the people and create and maintain such conditions as may encourage the growth of morality. However, it is said that not because something is immoral that makes it illegal, example: pre-marital sex, neglecting your family and adultery are just a few. Sometimes morality can influence the law in the sense that it can provide the reason for making whole groups of immoral actions illegal. With regards to this, in the case of Shaw v DPP (1962), Lord Diplock said “Shaw’s act of publishing advertisements for prostitutes soliciting fornication tended to corrupt public morals. Therefore Shaw’s agreement to do that act was a crime at common law”. The
The History and Main Features of Criminal Law in the USA.
Karen Mazo CJ 203-B4 05/17/2012 Criminal Law The study of criminal law is actually a study of human behavior. It is more than a study of specific crimes; it is also an examination of the rules of human behavior and criminal responsibility.[1]Criminal law is based on moral values, and many of our crimes are also violations of our moral standards.People in all societies have the inherit right to protect their society and those living in that society from acts that threaten either the society or the people.[2] And for this reason we have written or unwritten laws forbidding and punishing acts considered harmful to the group or the individual. The Colonial period in America saw changes to the English Common Law which reflected the cultural and social differences that were developing in the new nation. In many ways the law in America became more complex, reflecting the influence of “enlightenment” philosophy and, at the same time, reacting to the concentration of power in the hands of the leaders.[3]Conflicting ideologies and shifting demographics resulted in a natural state of checks and balances in the criminal justice system. The power of the jury to decide both “the facts and the law” acted as an informal reform of the system.[4] As criminal law developed in the 20th century, American Jurisprudence moved further and further away from common law principle that a
Describe the powers of the police to stop and search an individual on the street
Describe the powers of the police to stop and search an individual on the street. (18 mark) The police can stop anyone in a public place and ask you to account for yourself. For example, you could be asked to account for your actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything. When the police stop you and ask you for an explanation, you don't need to provide your personal details. The police do not have to make a record or give you a receipt. But you may be asked to give your ethnicity. The police can stop and search any person, vehicle, and anything in or on the vehicle for certain items. However, before they stop and search they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find: stolen goods, or, drugs, or, an offensive weapon, or, many article made or adapted for use in certain offences, for example a burglary or theft, or knives, or items which could damage or destroy property, for example spray paint cans. If a serious violent incident has taken place, the police can stop and search you without having reasonable grounds for suspecting they will find the items. The police can also search a football coach going to or from a football match if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting there is alcohol on board or that someone is drunk on the coach. The police can also stop and search you or your vehicle if they have reasonable grounds to
The insanity defense, when used correctly, allows mentally ill patients to receive a fair trial and punishment for their crimes.
The Crime of Insanity In his satirical essay “A New Crime,” Mark Twain presents his readers with shocking real-life examples of cold-blooded murderers who have been acquitted from their crimes by using the insanity plea as a defense. He condemns the murderers, usually those from backgrounds of wealth and social influence, who see this plea as a “get out jail free card”. Twain states that “Insanity certainly is on the increase in the world, and crime is dying out.” While some readers might read the stories of men like Baldwin or Hackett, who were able to abuse the insanity plea due to their family’s wealth and high social status, and call for the total elimination of the insanity plea as a murder defense, but this is the wrong idea. The key to correct use of the insanity plea is in reform, not abolishment. This is because no matter how rampant abuse of this defense it, there will always be people who, due to mental issues, truly were not in their right mind when they committed their murder; these people deserve a fair trial that takes into account every factor of their crime, just as anyone else would receive. The insanity defense, when used correctly, allows mentally ill patients to receive a fair trial and punishment for their crimes. The truth is, despite relatively recent cases of high profile criminals such as John Hinckley, who attempted to assassinate
delegated legisation
Clare Beavis Delegated Legislation Delegated legislation is law that is made by certain individuals or bodies rather than parliament. It is also sometimes referred to as law made by subordinate authorities who are acting under the grant of law- making powers delegated to them by parliament. Delegated legislation is necessary because parliament doesn't have the time or expertise to create law that is detailed and contains the satisfactory amount of technical points. The detail is therefore added in by who ever the power is delegated to. One form of delegated legislation is statutory instruments. A Statutory Instrument is often abbreviated to SI and they are needed to cover all the main details and operations that are to long or complex to be included within the main body of the act. They can also be used for updating Acts. This law making power is given to Ministers, who are head of government and includes implementing EU laws. For example a Statutory Instrument can be used for the fixing of fees or charges. The Statutory Instruments can allow fees or charges to be updated without the need for a new Bill. Another example of a SI is the Road Traffic act 1988. Another form of delegation legislation is bye-laws. This law only affects the area that it is made in. This form of law gives the law making powers to the local Authorities. A bye- law that illustrates this is the
Criminal offences are usually defined in terms of a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind(mens rea). Explain, using examples, how the law deals with (i) criminal omissions; (ii) strict liability.
(a) Criminal offences are usually defined in terms of a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind(mens rea). Explain, using examples, how the law deals with (i) criminal omissions; (ii) strict liability. (15 marks) To be guilty of a criminal offence you must be is possession of both actus reus and mens rea. In some cases however a person may be liable to failing to act this is known as an omission. Some Acts of Parliament create an offence of omission. For example failing to report a road traffic accident. For common law crimes an omission will only be liable for actus reus if they are under a duty to act. These duties include: * Relationship- e.g. parent/child relationship. Where parents have a duty to care for their child. R v Gibbons and Proctor 1918 where a father and his common law wife were guilty of murder when they starved their child to death. * Contract - if the person is under a contractual obligation. E.g. R v Pittwood 1902. * A duty arising from the accused's conduct- for example in R v Miller 1983 Miller accidentally started a fire in a squat but did nothing to stop the fire from spreading. * A duty arising form an official position- for example Police officers and some other are under a duty to protect the public. For example in Dytham 1979 a police officer witnessed an attack on a victim but did not intervene to help the victim or call for help.
Law - Unit 3 - Mock Exam Question
Criminal Law . a) The actus reus of a crime is all the elements of the offence committed other than the state of mind of the defendant. If the accused is to be found guilty of a crime, his or her behaviour in committing the actus reus must have been voluntary. In R v Burgess (1991) the defendant was sleep walking when he attacked someone, he was acquitted because it was said his conduct was involuntary. Crimes can be divided into three types depending on the nature of their actus reus. Firstly, a conduct crime is where the defendant will be liable simply by his conduct, the result of the defendant's actions is irrelevant. An example is perjury, where someone makes a false statement whilst under oath, whether the statement affects the outcome of the trial is not important, the offence has still been committed. Secondly, a state of affairs crime is where the defendant will be liable for an offence simply by being in a particular place when the state of affairs has been declared wrong. An example is where someone is in a place they are not allowed to be in. In R v Larsonneur (1933) the defendants permission to be in the United Kingdom had expired. She went to Ireland but was sent back to the United Kingdom when it was discovered that she did not have permission to be in Ireland. She was arrested and charged simply because she was in a country she wasn't allowed to be. It
Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or to fail to act to help someone who is in need. Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act)
"Law should encourage citizens in their civic duty to do 'the right thing' in a moral sense and not to turn a blind eye or to fail to act to help someone who is in need." Consider to what extent the criminal law relating to omissions (failures to act) reflects this view. An omission is when a person voluntarily fails to act. The general rule is that an omission cannot make a person guilty of an offence. This was explained by Stephen J in which he stated; "A sees B drowning and is able to save B by holding out his hand. A abstains in doing so in order that B drowns. A has committed no offence." However, there are exceptions where the failure to act is the actus reus of a crime; an Act of Parliament can create liability for an omission because the defendant has a statutory duty. An example of this would be if a parent had neglected their child of food and clothing then they would be in breach of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Therefore the defendant could be prosecuted for not carrying out the duty made by this act. Another exception to the rule of omissions is if the person has a contractual duty, and fails to carry out their responsibilities in their contract. This happened in the case of R V Pittwood 1902 where the defendant was a railway-crossing keeper who failed to shut the gates when a train was approaching which resulted in the death of someone who was
