Attempt to establish the relative advantages of both custodial and non-custodial sentencing in relation to punishing offenders in the United Kingdom.
The purpose of this essay will be to attempt to establish the relative advantages of both custodial and non-custodial sentencing in relation to punishing offenders in the United Kingdom. The concept and rationale for punishment will be discussed, drawing on theoretical perspectives as analytical and evaluative tools. The essay will conclude with an overall evaluation of the merits and demerits of custodial vis à vis non-custodial sentencing and a projection for the future of sentencing. Garland defines punishment as a 'complex social institution,' arguing that it is a mechanism for dealing with criminals in a legally administrative way, but that it is also an expression of state power, a statement of collective prevailing morality, emotional expression and economically-linked social policy (Garland, 1990, p. 287). Punishment may also be defined as anything that is unpleasant, a burden, or an imposition of some sort on an offender. Thus, compensation is a punishment, as is having to attend a counselling program, paying a fine, having to report to a probation officer on a regular basis, or doing work for a crime victim (Duff 1992, p. 73; Davis 1992, pp. 44-45). Why society punishes and what punishment can and cannot accomplish are central issues to this essay so that the concept of punishment, manner and the degree to which it is metered out can be understood; not just
Offender Profiling...............USA or UK?
Aneeq Mushtaq Offender Profiling...............USA or UK? Offender profiling aims to present a composite description of a perpetrator, based on biographical and behavioural cues that can lead to the apprehension of that perpetrator. Profiling techniques have been used to narrow the focus of an investigation (by specifying the perpetrators location, sex or age) or to provide suggestions for interviewing suspects (McCann, 1992). As a result of collecting data and analysing evidence, the use of such techniques have led to arrests of serious criminals such as John Duffy (UK), who murdered his victims near railways (Canter 1989). This assignment will aim to compare and contrast the FBI's 'Crime Scene Analysis' of offender profiling with that of David Canter's 'Five Factor Model. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach will be highlighted including the main differences between profiling in the USA and UK. Due to the rapid increase of serial murders and rapes in the USA within the 1970's, the FBI invented the first systematic approach of offender profiling. Counteracting the rising numbers of serial murders lead to the development to the Behavioural Sciences Unit (BSU). BSU interviewed 36 convicted sexually orientated murderers and classified them into organised (average / above average intelligence, crime planned) or disorganised (low intelligence, messy crime scene,
Criminal Law Omissions. In the English legal system there is generally no liability for an omission to act, the English legal system does not have a good Samaritan rule neither is there no duty of easy rescue.
In the English legal system there is generally no liability for an omission to act, the English legal system does not have a 'good Samaritan rule' neither is there 'no duty of easy rescue'. Fitzjames Stephen gave a classical example of 'A seeing B drowning and is able to save him by holding out his hand. A abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned, A will have committed no offence.'1 This example clearly shows that there is no positive duty for B to act, even though B holding his hand out may have saved A's life. This is a controversial issue as the law allows one to watch a person drown without them being prosecuted for any offence. However in some European countries this is different such as in France and Germany where there is a duty of easy rescue and failure to do so will amount to a criminal offence2. As I have earlier said generally there is no liability for failing to act, however there are six exceptions and if a person fails to act then they will be committing a criminal law offence, there is a vast amount of case law in this field which will be used to illustrate the exceptions to an omission. The first exception I will discuss is a special relationship, this is where the law will require an individual to act where there is a special relationship, it is generally recognised the more closer the relationship the more likely the law will impose a duty.
Criminal Law,dealing with the subject of murder and how applying the general principles of criminal law will help us in deciding an outcome
Criminal Law LR2S07 This essay will be dealing with the subject of murder and how applying the general principles of criminal law will help us in deciding an outcome. To begin with murder can be defined as 'a common law offence, which is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's peace with malice aforethought.'1 It is important to establish whether Mens Rea and Actus Reus are present. In most cases is an act of crime because the person committing it intended to do something wrong. This mental state is generally referred to as Mens rea, or guilty mind. Mens rea expresses a belief that people should be punished only when they have acted in a way that makes them morally blameworthy.2 The Actus Reus is a guilty action, which may not necessarily involve intent. The main facts of the case are as follows: John was a Carsea United supporter, he brought three flares to the match with he planned to release into the crowd to disrupt the match is the opposition, Swaniff City, were in the lead. After half time, Swaniff City were clearly leading so John decided to release the flares. He points them to the Swaniff City fans, whom he hates passionately. One of the flares hits Pablo; John laughs and flees the scene. Pablo is eventually collected by an ambulance but due to the drivers careless driving, is involved in an accident. Another ambulance comes after a considerable
"There is no statutory definition of intention in English law. Indeed, over the past few decades there has been much controversy over the actual meaning of the concept 'intention'". Explain and evaluate this statement.
This essay will deliberate the extent to which the meaning of the concept of 'intention' in criminal law has proven controversial through analysis of pertinent case law and academic critiques. In particular this essay will explore how the concept of 'intention' has changed in various cases in chronological order and the effect this has had. The essay will then focus on the current criticisms of the concept and proposals for reform will be discussed. A conclusion will be made reasoning the extent of controversy that surrounds the concept of intention in both the past few decades and in the present day. In many conduct crimes whereby the defendant's conduct is required to produce a particular consequence, liability can either be based on his intention or his recklessness as to that consequence. The offences that are based on the proof of, and rely on the definition of 'intention' to find liability are most notably the more serious crimes1, with much of the debate on the meaning of 'intention' being centred around the offence of murder2. Nonetheless, intention is not defined in any statute therefore its meaning must be derived from judicial decisions3, thus one would think that such an elementary term would have been definitively defined a long time ago; however this is not the case as we will see. Lord Steyn suggested obiter, in the House of Lords (HoL) judgement of R v
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Before 1986 the police dealt with all prosecutions brought forward. However, this became a critical issue as it was argued that the organisation dealing with the crime enquiry should be independent from the organisation dealing with the prosecution. Inattention of the prosecutions dealt by the police, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure concluded after a report that it would be beneficial if the prosecutions were a self-governing establishment. After the analysis of the report the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was finally set up and began running in 1986. The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 established it. As from 1986 all prosecutions were done by the CPS, which meant the police and the CPS now conducted different roles within the criminal justice system. The head of the CPS is the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP). The Attorney General appoints the DPP, who must be a qualified lawyer for at least 10years. Below the DPP are the Chief Crown Prosecutors who are head of one of the 42 areas of which the country is dived up and below them is the Branch Crown Prosecutors who head their sub-divided CPS branch. Within the legal system the police have the duty to obtain as much evidence against a defendant. Once gaining all relevant evidence, they have the option of doing any of the following with the suspect. They can take no further action, they can give an
Homicide. Unlawful killing is when and a person of sound mind and of the age of discretion can commit the actus Reus of murder by unlawfully killing another person. This means that the defendant in a murder case must be legally responsible for his actions
Homicide The act of homicide is broken down in English law to murder and manslaughter, in other countries such as the USA murder or manslaughter is usually referred to just as homicide. In the USA murder is broken down into different degrees however in English law it is not, it is murder which follows with a mandatory life sentence. There can be various different types of manslaughter dependent on the situation and very different aspects involved with the crime itself. Unlawful killing is when and a person of sound mind and of the age of discretion can commit the actus Reus of murder by unlawfully killing another person. This means that the defendant in a murder case must be legally responsible for his actions and cannot be classed as insane, cannot have committed the crime under diminished responsibility and has to be a person and not a corporation. Currently in England the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old, over the years there have been calls for this to be raised to 12 and in some cases 14, this would follow many other countries throughout the world. A key argument in this case is that the murder of Jamie Bulger in 1993 was carried out by two 10 year olds and although child murderers are uncommon, should it happen again in the future, the children who are involved in the act would not be held responsible for their actions. The actus reus in murder is
Chain of causation problem question. The given case is concerned with the law on homicide in English Criminal Law. Albert is likely to be accused of three different offences; the death of Bert amounting to involuntary manslaughter, the injuries suffered
Albert is a drug-dealer. One evening, selling heroin up a dark alley, he is first approached by Bert, with whom he has dealt several times in the past. Albert sells him the drug. Bert goes home, injects himself, and dies that same evening from an overdose. Next Albert is approached by Carol, whom he has never met before, but correctly supposes to be already heavily addicted. She is so desperate for the heroin that, at her request, he holds her arm steady while she injects herself there and then with the heroin he has supplied. Carol has a seizure and hits her head against a wall, resulting in severe bruising, but no lasting injury. Finally, Albert is approached by Diane, whom he knows well, and, at her suggestion they both go to her flat. There Diane injects herself with the heroin that Albert supplies. She passes out and Albert carries her to her bed, lying down beside her. When he awakes next morning Diane is looking very pale and is not conscious. Albert decides just to leave her there. Diane dies that afternoon from the heroin injection, never having recovered consciousness. The medical evidence is that her life would very likely have been saved had she received medical attention earlier in the day. Discuss the criminal liability of Albert, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory. You need not consider offences under the Misuse of
Criminal liability is generally thought to require an act, as opposed to an omission and that the act be performed voluntarily. Discuss the significance of these requirements.
Criminal liability is generally thought to require an act, as opposed to an omission and that the act be performed voluntarily. Discuss the significance of these requirements. Criminal liability is imposed when a person can be fairly blamed for causing a prohibited harm or result. This blame then justifies the enforcement of punishment, which depending on the seriousness of the crime, can range from a simple fine to a mandatory life imprisonment. The potential restriction of rights and freedom, as well as the social stigma of being labeled a criminal, hence demand that certain criteria should be met before someone can be liable for his actions. The requirements expressed in the statement above fall within the ambit of actus reus, the objective conduct element of a crime that is a precondition for criminal liability. We shall look at the significances of these requirements from various perspectives. Actus reus is concerned with conduct. The term 'conduct' in the context of criminal law comprises of both acts and omissions. The distinction between them is important, because liability will only be imposed for an omission if a legal duty to act can be established. Katz suggested the following test: 'if the defendant did not exist, would the harmful outcome in question still have occurred the way it did?'1 There are several other distinctions, but the distinction that justifies
The search of Arnold - Police stop and search powers.
The search of Arnold Introduction A police officer is given the power to stop and search a person under section 1(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, where it states that a constable may search "any person or vehicle, anything which is in or on a vehicle, for stolen or prohibited articles or any articles to which subsection (8A) below applies". A police officer can also be given the power to randomly search people under s.60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, without the need for reasonable suspicion. To consider whether the stop and search was lawful, I will begin by determining whether the statutory requirements were fulfilled for a s.1 PACE search, then the alternative means of searching Arnold, and finally questions over the legality of the search in other aspects of the law. S.1 Pace Search The first issue which we must deal with is where the section 11 search takes place. Under section 1 of PACE2, it specifies that a search may take place where the "public has access" or "any other place to which people have ready access at the time", but is not the suspect's garden. In this case it is in The Shires shopping centre in Leicester; this suggests that it complied with s.1(1) and 1(4) of PACE, unless the police officer took him to a part of the shopping centre which was not open to the public. However, this isn't specified in the information
