CRITICALLY DISCUSS CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF A CASE.

Criminal liability is when a person is responsible or liable to a particular crime when he/ she has acted with criminal intent. A person is only convicted and punished for a crime when they are criminally liable. The justice system considers an action to be a crime when it is against the defined laws and statutes of a state. Liability is the accountability for the crime and the punishment that society demands the crime. As is explained in the community, a person who commits a crime must be punished by society and pay for the crimes committed. The court confirms a person to be liable for the misconduct when the prosecution proves that the offender committed a crime, and they find the requisite intent to hold the offender accountable. This case discusses the criminal liability of Carole. A woman charged with hitting her sister to the head with a crowbar killing her.

From article 16, a person who commits a crime is criminally accountable when he/she commits an offense that is; defined as a criminal offense by the law. The characteristics of illegal actions are specified by statute as unlawful. The statute also specifies the penalties if the acts committed, are defined by the law. And even when these actions are reckless, with negligence, and intention as described by the law. To determine the criminal liability of Carole, the court must evaluate the following issues; first, whether there was a crime committed by Carole. Criminal act refers to the physical elements of the evil, which actus reus. Hitting a person in the head, causing death, is an act of crime. In the accused case, the court finds her responsible for the crime. Basing on the presence of physical evidence.

Further, to determine the criminal liability of the suspect, the voluntariness of the accused to commit the crime should be proven, which means that the court must prove that the suspect controlled the action. Involuntariness includes any body movements that are not part of the efforts and determination of the suspect. Such as actions done under hypnotic suggestions and unconsciousness. Otherwise, any acts done by the suspect in their conscious state of mind and requires their determination and effort to prove criminal liability. In this case, the actions of Carole basing on the requirement of voluntariness find her to be criminally liable for killing her sister. Since she stood up from her chair, picked up the crowbar, and hit Louise over the head until she died.

The status of a person in society shows who the accused is and not the actions they committed. In Carole’s case, she has a history of severe depression caused by physical and emotional torment by her sister, making her withdraw from society. If a person can control his/her actions despite their status, then the court can hold them criminally liable for their actions. Carole was in a position to control her emotions, but she chose to act on the violent impulse and kill her sister.

Secondly, for the court to conclude that a person is criminally liable, it needs to determine if the accused had the intent (mens rea) to commit the crime. The prosecution should prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Carole harbored a certain amount of criminal intent (mens rea). In this case, the trial needs to prove that Carole intended to hit Louise that night with a crowbar to her death. An individual acts intentionally when he/she knowingly and purposely commit a crime. In such a scenario, a person is only criminally liable if he/she is fully conscious of the actions and the consequences of the activities. The basis of determining the mental state of the suspect is the principle of autonomy and the ability to make decisions between various options of action. Their criminal liability lies in conscious decision-making. So, to establish criminal liability, the criminal act and its consequence must be as a result of a free decision. In Carole’s case, she cannot be criminally liable to her sister’s death based on intent (mens rea). Since her intention, that night was not to hit her sister to her death. She acted on impulse caused due to a build-up of frustration for a lifetime of physical and emotional torment form her sister.

The third issue the court must determine is whether there are any rationalizations to the conduct of the suspect. The accused may have committed the crime from the physical evidence and the voluntariness evidence provided in court, and also the intent of committing the crime might be available. But he/she may still be free of any criminal liability due to a lawful and robust defense for his/her actions. Justification defense is when the court deems the acts of the accused to be non-criminal because the circumstances of the crime make the actions socially acceptable in some way.

According to chapter 9 of the penal code, to justify certain conduct, it should be beyond doubt that the suspect rationally believed that his/her actions were required. Using deadly force is not justified in this chapter unless the suspect reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary. From this case, Carole did not provoke Louise, but Louise caused Carole both physically and mentally, which led her to use deadly force. Even though Louise’s actions tormented Carole not only verbally but physically, the measure of Louise’s provocation does not match Carole’s use of lethal force. Carole’s conduct cannot be justified as lawful or permissible by the court as her reaction to Louise’s actions cannot be rationalized as specifically necessary and reasonable hence in justification defense, Carole is deemed criminally liable for Louise’s death.

Just as we have seen in lawful justification, a person’s conduct may also fall under specific grounds that exclude criminal accountability of a crime following the principles and codes in the justice system. Determining criminal liability basing on the exclusion of moral responsibility of person conduct can be used as a defense. This defense excuses a person from any moral blame of their behavior even if other elements of crime consider the actions criminal. Exclusion from criminal liability only happens when the suspect did not commit the crimes voluntarily or when he/she did not have the capability of committing the crime. The court deems a person not capable of committing a crime due to circumstances like mental illness. In such a case, the suspect cannot understand the wrongfulness of his/her conduct when committing the crime. Hence the accused cannot be blamed for such actions and if the court finds him/her not criminally liable for the misconduct.

Exclusion of responsibility goes hand in hand with the fitness of the accused to stand trial. In Carole’s case, mental illness can be used by her defense to find her not criminally liable for her sister’s death. Having been diagnosed with severe depression by her several psychiatric years ago, Carole has been battling mental illness for a long time, keeping her abusive sister in the dark for her mental condition. This psychological condition caused an impulsive reaction from Carole when her sister started bullying her, provoking her to hit Louise over the head, causing her death impulsively.

The court also looks at the circumstances that led to the actions of the accused. The situations surrounding the acts of the suspect may determine if the charged is criminally liable for the crime or not. The circumstances that the court considers include duress and necessity of the crime. Criminal law defines coercion as the extreme necessity that causes a person to act in a certain way. A person cannot be excluded from criminal liability when the court determines that the conduct of the person that led to the supposed crime was due to intimidation. That resulted in looming death or continuing body harm against that person, making the person act reasonably to avoid this threat provided that the intentions of the person as not to cause a further injury that they one he/she seeks to avoid.  Exclusion from liability of crime basing on duress only happens when the action meant to avoid the immediate danger, which is severe and irreversible when there were no adequate means of escape. The repair is not uneven to evil. In Carole’s case, actions under duress find her criminally liable for her sister’s death. Since her sister’s actions, despite causing her severe mental and physical pain, at that moment did not put her in imminent danger, she could have escaped the situation and her reaction to her sister’s actions as disproportionate.

References

2007, Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing.

2011, “Responsibility, Citizenship, and Criminal Law,” in R.A. Duff and S.P. Green (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2013a, “Relational Reasons and the Criminal Law,” in L. Green and B. Leiter (eds.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law (Volume 2), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2017, “Causation in (Criminal) Law,” Law Quarterly Review, 113: 416–441.

Allen, M., 2005. Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford Press.

Alexander, L., 2002, “Criminal Liability for Omissions – An Inventory of Issues.” S. Shute and A.P. Simester (eds.), Criminal Law Theory: Doctrines of the General Part, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Anon., n.d. Penal code, general principles of criminal responsibility, chapter 9. Justification excluding criminal liability. Texas: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm.

Dempsey, M. M., 2009, Prosecuting Domestic Violence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Duarte d’Almeida, L., 2015, Allowing for Exceptions: A Theory of Defenses and Defeasibility in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

John Kaplan, 2012. Criminal Law Cases and Materials. 7th ed. s.l.:s.n.

Richard M Bonnie, 1997. Criminal Law. The Foundation Press, p. 324.

Robinson, Paul H., 1983. Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond. Stanford Law Review, Volume 35, pp. 681-762.

Simester, A. P., and A. von Hirsch, 2011, Crimes, Harms, and Wrongs: On the Principles of Criminalization, Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Simester, A. P., and W. Chan, 2011, “Four Functions of Mens Rea,” Cambridge Law Review, 70: 381–396.

Stewart, H., 2010, “The Limits of the Harm Principle,” Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4: 17–35.