Criminal Law. Assault and Battery. Automobiles. Negligent Driving. Criminal Intent

1915 ◽  
Vol 2 (8) ◽  
pp. 621
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Intent ◽  
Assault And Battery

Re-formulating the Observable Inadequacy of the Prevalent Approaches Followed by Islamic Jurisprudence and Statute Law in Dealing with Mens Rea

2016 ◽  
Vol 80 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-263
Author(s):  
Fatemeh Ahadi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Islamic Jurisprudence ◽  
State Of Mind ◽  
Criminal Intent

The present paper constitutes an attempt towards questioning the adequacy of the prevalent approached employed by Islamic jurisprudence and statute law in dealing with mens rea and its manifestations. It also provides a kind of reinterpretation of the concept since it attaches itself to the perspective that the concepts employed in criminal law need evolution in order to preserve their function and practicality; the conditions appertaining thereto necessitating adaptability of the concepts with the contextual conditions as well as the principles of the criminal law. Under criminal law, mens rea is referred to as ‘criminal intent or the state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime’ (see, for example, Staples v United States, 511 US 600 (1994)). Under Islamic jurisprudence it is defined as ‘rebellion intent’. These conceptualisations of the mens rea may be subject to evolution as well as the other concepts. The present paper provides a reformulation of these definitions wherein mens rea is considered to be ‘the culpable linkage of mind with the forbidden conduct’. Through this reformulation the author replaces the ‘state’ with ‘linkage’ presupposing that the interpretation of the term ‘culpable’, as an independent constituent, shall vary according to the provisions of common sense and the contextual conditions.

10. Non-fatal offences against the person

2021 ◽  
pp. 421-467
Author(s):  
Michael J. Allen ◽  
Ian Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Hate Crime ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Bodily Harm ◽  
Hate Crime Legislation ◽  
Grievous Bodily Harm ◽  
The Law ◽  
Crime Legislation ◽  
Assault And Battery

Course-focused and contextual, Criminal Law provides a succinct overview of the key areas on the law curriculum balanced with thought-provoking contextual discussion. This chapter discusses the main non-fatal offences involving violence against the person. Non-fatal offences include assault and battery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wounding and inflicting grievous bodily harm, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent, administering poison, and offences related to explosive substances and corrosive fluids (including offences related to ‘acid attacks’). The chapter analyses in detail consent as a defence to non-fatal offences against the person, including discussion of recent case law on whether consent is a defence to acts of ‘body modification’. The chapter also outlines necessity and lawful correction. The chapter’s ‘The Law in Context’ feature examines the scope of ‘hate crime’ legislation.

4. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

2020 ◽  
pp. 56-79
Author(s):  
Mischa Allen
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Study Skills ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
The Common ◽  
Assault And Battery ◽  
Self Defence

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, diagram answer plans, suggested answers, author commentary, and advice on study skills. This chapter presents sample exam questions on non-fatal offences against the person and suggested answers. The questions cover all the typical offences against the person one would expect to find on a standard criminal law syllabus. The emphasis in this chapter is on the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in particular ss 18, 20, and 47. Common law assault and battery are also covered. Self-defence and the common law defence of consent are also considered.

4. Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mischa Allen
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
The Common ◽  
Assault And Battery ◽  
Self Defence

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, diagram answer plans, suggested answers, and author commentary. This chapter presents sample exam questions on non-fatal offences against the person and suggested answers. The questions cover all the typical offences against the person one would expect to find on a standard criminal law syllabus. The emphasis in this chapter is on the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in particular ss. 18, 20, and 47. Common law assault and battery are also covered. Self-defence and the common law defence of consent are also considered.

Actus Reus

Criminology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Foster
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
The Third ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Criminal Intent ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Affirmative Defense ◽  
Do So

Actus reus is an area of substantive criminal law and is an act by an individual that is deemed to be improper by societal laws. It is one of the elements of a crime and works in connection with mens rea or criminal intent. Illegal or immoral thoughts cannot be legally punished, but once those thoughts are put into action, there is a concurrence between the two elements. There are three types of actus reus, which include a voluntary act, possession, and omission. Within actus reus voluntariness is presumed on the part of the actor. If an accused party wishes to claim an action was involuntary, then an excuse defense would be necessary in criminal court. Possession is also a type of actus reus when an individual is in the possession of or has the possession of an item that is known by the individual to be illegal under the law. As an example, if a person is wearing a jacket that contains a bag of marijuana in the pocket and the person knows that the substance is illegal, then even if the marijuana is not the wearer’s marijuana, the action of possession is fulfilled due to the marijuana being an illegal substance. Omission is the third type of criminal act. Omission is satisfied when a person does not act when that person is required under law to do so. A person would be required to act when there is a contractual obligation to act or a duty to act, such as would be the case of a parent and a child. The parent has a duty to act to protect the child from harm. A defense to possession or omission is possible. Defenses include an alibi or an affirmative defense. A justification defense is one type of an affirmative defense where the accused party claims the action was not criminal given the circumstances of the situation such as duress, etc. An excuse defense is the second type of an affirmative defense in which the accused claims they should not be held accountable for the improper conduct for a reason such as age, intoxication, or insanity. Incomplete offenses, known as inchoate crimes, have their own section within criminal law but are treated similarly to completed offenses.

Sadomasochistic Assault

2020 ◽  
pp. 277-294
Author(s):  
Stuart P. Green
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Assault ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Side Effect ◽  
Role Playing ◽  
Double Effect ◽  
Not Given ◽  
Doctrine Of Double Effect ◽  
Assault And Battery

This chapter considers sadomasochistic assault. Although no offense in the criminal law is specifically labeled as such, this kind of conduct has been prosecuted under general (nonsexual) assault and battery provisions. Consent normally is allowed as a defense to charges of assault involving other kinds of (nonsexual) consensual pain infliction, such as occurs in surgery, sports, tattooing, and religious flagellation. Sadomasochistic assault prosecutions differ in that the consent or volenti defense is generally disfavored. The chapter offers an argument for why consensual sadomasochistic sex is more wrongful than these others kinds of consensual harm causing, based on the doctrine of double effect (the idea that it is permissible to cause harm as a side effect of bringing about a good result, even though it would not be permissible to cause such harm as a means to bringing about the same good end). But even if that argument is correct, it would not necessarily justify SM’s criminalization. Also considered here is the problem of how to distinguish between SM that is truly consensual and that which is not. Given the role playing it sometimes involves, there exists a possibility that without appropriate safeguards, SM might serve as a cover for what is essentially rape and sexual assault.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document