Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Is The Imposition Of Strict Liability Ever Justifiable In Criminal Law?. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 9 page paper consider if there is ever a justification to impose strict liability under criminal law. The paper looks at the concepts and application of actus reus and mens rea and how strict liability fits in with these concepts and argues that the idea of strict liability may be in the public interest as well as have a basis in the foundations of criminal law. The bibliography cites 7 sources.
Page Count:
9 pages (~225 words per page)
File: TS14_TEstrtcrim.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
criminal law. If we look at criminal law this is not concerned with individual rights and does not seek to remedy a situation. Crime is a public wrong; however, not
all wrongs are criminal and the imposition of a strict liability may be seen as conducting some of the basic tenets of criminal law, alternatively this may be a way
of enhancing justice for the public as both a disincentive and reducing the burden of proof where a wrong has been committed.
To look at this owe can consider Smith and Hogan (1999), who describe crimes in the following way; "Crimes, then, are wrongs which the judges have held, or Parliament
has from time to time laid down, are sufficiently injurious to the public to warrant the application of criminal procedure to deal with them". (Smith and Hogan, 1999; 12).
Therefore, we can also see that there maybe some acts which we feel to be immoral or unethical, but they do not constitute criminal
acts, whereas other action may be criminal, even if we do not feel that they offend our morals. In considering criminal law the moral aspect needs to be remembered, but
the case is made on the law and on the facts surrounding the case, not on moral indignation. For criminal liability to exist
we also need to consider the elements, those of actus reus and mens rea, this means there needs to be both the action and the mental state. With actus reus
we can consult with the case of Haughton v Smith [1973] All ER 1109 where Lord Hailsham stated "an act does not make a man guilty of a crime, unless
...