Responsibility and the Young Person

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Micucci
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Young Person ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
The Public ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Minimum Age ◽  
Criminal Conduct

In 1993, two young boys were convicted for the murder of a two-year-old toddler, James Bulger. Both boys were ten years old when the murder was committed. Such a violent act raises the timeless question: At what age should a child be held fully responsible by a nation’s criminal justice system for criminal conduct? Serious crimes are being committed by young persons and the public seems to have the impression that such acts are being committed at an increasingly young age.Generally, the age of criminal responsibility (or legal responsibility) refers to the age at which a person becomes subject to the full penalties provided by the criminal law and this age varies greatly from country to country. In the Bulger case, at the age of ten, both boys had reached the age of criminal responsibility in England. Yet in other countries, this would not have been the case. In Canada, for example, the young persons would not have been subject to the criminal law since the minimum age of legal responsibility is twelve years. Historically, young persons have been given special treatment under the criminal law. Under the doli incapax (incapable of committing a crime) standard, a child’s capacity to commit a crime was questioned when attempting to affix criminal responsibility. Some countries still adhere to this common law doli incapax rule. In the first section of this paper, I will outline both the historical and present diversity between countries in relation to the age of criminal responsibility, as well as the associated advantages and disadvantages of these various systems.

Introduction: Criminal Law

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Public Response ◽  
The Public ◽  
Moral Basis ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
Justification Of Punishment ◽  
Criminal Conduct

It is hardly surprising that philosophers have long regarded the criminal law as fertile ground. As the most visible application of state power, the criminal law raises issues of the first importance to political philosophy: issues of liberty, justice, and the common good. In announcing and enforcing rules of behaviour the criminal law connects with the concerns of moral philosophers, who have paid particular attention to the justification of punishment and the moral basis of criminal responsibility. Lastly, since the criminal law is typically concerned with the actions of human beings, it raises issues in the philosophy of action. Philosophers have devoted much attention to such central criminal law concepts as voluntariness, intention, and causation.The essays collected here explore topics which fall into three broad groups: the interests protected by the criminal law, the relation of agents to outcomes, and defenses to otherwise criminal conduct. Criminal law protects certain types of interests against certain kinds of invasions. Not everything that sets back a person’s interests is subject to legal sanction. Among those interests that the law deems worthy of protection, only certain kinds of invasions merit criminalization. The papers by Marshall and Duff, Hampton, Lacey, and Brett all touch on issues of the moral basis of criminalization. Marshall and Duff focus on the general issue of criminalization, arguing that crimes merit a certain kind of public response because they are attacks on the public. Drawing out the implications of the familiar fact that the state is a party to a criminal proceeding, they argue that the criminal law appropriately addresses wrongs that are shared by the wider community. For Marshall and Duff, criminalization is about deciding that a wrong against one person is serious in a way that makes it a wrong against everyone in the community, and demands a collective response.

Young Minds, Old Legal Problems

2018 ◽  
Vol 82 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Wishart
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Young Person ◽  
Young Adolescents ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Mental Functions ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
Reasonable Degree ◽  
Minimum Age

From 10 years of age, the criminal law requires a person demonstrate a reasonable degree of normative competence. But what if a young person aged between 10 and 14 years does not possess such mental capacities, cannot do anything about it and is not capable of holding responsibility? Should the criminal law make allowances for him in these circumstances? I will argue that it should, because neuroscientific studies reveal young adolescents to be incapable of exercising normative competence. For evidence suggests that they are only capable of performing basic mental functions, for instance, self-directed reasoning and appreciating short-term consequences of their actions. In agreement is Lord Dholakia, the principal drafter of the Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill (2017–2019) since the law’s idea of what a 10-year-old is mentally capable of is at odds with the degree of maturational development obtained. As a consequence, Lord Dholakia proposes that there be an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years. Though the underlying premise to increase the threshold age is sound, numerous objections will be made, for it will be defended this proposition rests on insufficient neuroscientific evidence.

scholarly journals CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN INDONESIA ON THE PERSPECTIVE OF COMPARISON

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 144-154
Author(s):  
Muchammad Chasani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Criminal Legislation ◽  
Corporate Criminal Liability ◽  
Responsibility System

The regulation of corporate criminal liability in Indonesia's criminal justice system is basically a new and still debatable issue. It is said that because in the Criminal Code is not recognized and regulated explicitly about the corporation as a subject of criminal law. This is a natural thing since the WvS Criminal Code still adheres to the principle of "societas delinquere non potest" or "non-potest university delinquere", that is, a legal entity can not commit a crime. Thus, if in a society there is a criminal offense, then the criminal act is deemed to be done by the board of the corporation concerned. Regarding the corporate criminal responsibility system in Indonesia, in the corruption law Article 20 paragraph (1), if the corporation committed a criminal act of corruption, then those responsible for the criminal act shall be the corporation only, the management only, or the corporation and its management. Thus, it can be said that the regulation of corporate criminal liability in the legal system in Indonesia is expressly only regulated in special criminal legislation, because the Criminal Code of WvS still adheres to the principle of "societas delinquere nonpotest" so it is not possible to enforce corporate criminal liability in it.

Die Privilegierung der Landwirtschaft

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nils Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
General Public ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
The Public ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Debate

Even in an industrialised and service-based economy, agriculture is and remains a sector that is particularly worthy of protection and that operates not only in its own interest, but also in the interest of the general public. However, the social debate shows that the advantages and disadvantages of agriculture are not balanced on every farm. The study deals with the public interest in the privileged treatment of agriculture, i.e. the question of what justifies the special treatment of agriculture and what is "agriculture" in this sense.

The Protection of the Accused from Miscarriage of Justice

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 590-611
Author(s):  
A.A.S. Zuckerman
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Small Proportion ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Large Measure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Miscarriage Of Justice

The criminal trial system is regarded as standing at the pinnacle of the state's machinery for dealing with crime. But the courts deal with only a small proportion of crimes committed. Their function is more indirect: to express societal disapproval through a public and somewhat theatrical show. This is not to denigrate the role of the courts or dismiss it as futile. The criminal trial does have important functions in the development of norms for criminal responsibility and in fostering respect for the law. But its success in this regard hinges on the extent to which it is perceived as a just and effective method for dealing with those charged with crime. Put crudely, the success of the criminal justice system turns in large measure in the success of the show it puts on. But theatre is good only for as long as it is able to carry the audience with it, which, in the case of the courts, this means as long as the public is prepared to accept their verdicts at face value.

Judicial Resistance to Sentencing Accountability

1975 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 201-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald D. Robin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Change Agents ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Social Psychological ◽  
The Public ◽  
Civilian Review ◽  
The Press ◽  
The Sacrifice

A social-psychological interpretation of judicial resistance to sentencing accountability is presented against a background of or ganizational theory and institutional change. The provision of documented reasons in sentencing is related to a predictable in crease in appellate review and reversal, heightened criticism by the press and the public, and consequent diminution of the judiciary's role. The reaction by judges to reform of their sentencing function is viewed as entirely rational: they desire to preserve their advan tageous position in the criminal justice system. Efforts to avoid infringement upon their most valued discretionary domain are de termined by the innovation's incentives and impediments per ceived and felt by the judges. The court's response to sentencing accountability is compared with the police response to the now- defunct civilian review boards. The relinquishment of discretion, especially that exercised by high echelon administrators, does not yield easily to the transparent rhetoric of the criminal justice re formers and intellectuals attempting to convince the functionaries involved that guided, controlled, benevolently monitored "innova tion" applied to operational power and authority will be painless, worth the sacrifice, or fully justified by the contribution to "im provement of the system." Those who have the most have the most to lose from the prospect and implementation of social change. Ac cordingly, the targets of the change agents are highly inventive and effective in guarding their possessions and in maintaining their social status and the bureaucratic status quo. Nonetheless, the case for sentencing accountability is compelling, and, as a result of pro cesses and forces largely external to the court itself, we may be wit nessing the beginning of the criminal law revolution coming home to roost.

scholarly journals Children's Criminal Responsibilities: Comparative Study in Islamic and Criminal Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-108
Author(s):  
Heni Hendrawati ◽  
Nurwati Nurwati ◽  
Budiharto Budiharto
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Interesting Phenomenon ◽  
Library Research

The study of criminal liability against child offenders based on Law No. 11 of 2012 concerning the Criminal Justice System of Children and according to Islamic Criminal Law is a very interesting phenomenon to study, especially during this time many phenomena of a minor underage sitting in the accused and detained like a big villain just because of a trivial matter. This study includes the type of research library research, so in this study, researchers conducted data collection through the study and library research on books relating to the problems the authors studied. In analyzing this study, the authors used a comparative method that is comparing child criminal liability in positive criminal law based on Law No. 11 of 2012 concerning the Child Criminal Justice System, with child criminal liability in Islamic criminal law. In Islamic law, a child will not be subject to a punishment for the crime he committed, because there is no legal responsibility for a child of any age until he reaches the age of baliq, qadhi will only have the right to reprimand him or set some restrictions for him to help improve the child in the future. It is expected that this research can contribute to the renewal of national criminal law, especially regarding criminal liability committed by children, taking into account the concepts in Islamic criminal law.

scholarly journals Criminal Liability for Knowingly Unlawful Sentence, Decision or Other Judicial Act

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-102
Author(s):  
Pavel Metelsky ◽  
Nadezhda Verchenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
The Public ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Considerable Complexity

Introduction. The publication is devoted to the corpus delicti, provided for by Art. 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, being, in fact, a special type of official abuse, stands out as the direct object of a criminal assault and a special subject, since it can be committed exclusively by professional judges. The main features of the objective and subjective parties, qualifying signs of the offense are revealed, some problems that arise when applying this criminal law are outlined. Purpose. The goal is to analyze the design features of the crime and issues that arise when applying this rule. Methodology. The method of a formal legal analysis of the norms of the criminal law and theoretical provisions on problems directly related to the application of this rule was used. Results. The public danger of a criminal act that undermines the very foundations of justice is obvious, in connection with which it stands out as an independent crime by all the Russian Criminal Codes, starting in 1922, the history of criminal responsibility for its commission can be traced in our country in general since the 16th century. The current criminal law prohibition is characterized by considerable complexity, due to both the blanket nature of the disposition of the norm itself and the presence of discrepancies in the understanding of the signs embodied in it. Conclusion. The implementation of criminal liability for this crime involves the establishment of not only circumstances directly related to the corpus delicti that lie in the criminal law field. The subject of an infringement, a judicial act, must be subjected to procedural review without fail, after which, subject to the consent of the Higher Qualification Collegium of Judges of the Russian Federation, in fact, and the mechanism of criminal prosecution is “launched”. That is, a truly “multi-way” combination of actions is necessary, carried out in several stages, and the problem itself to some extent becomes interdisciplinary, going beyond only criminal law.

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF NON BIS IN IDEM IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS RIGHT UKRAINE

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petro Olishchuk ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Legal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
European Court

The article analyzes the principle of non bis in idem in the context of the criminal legislation of Ukraine, as well as the identification of cases of violations of this principle by law enforcement bodies during the qualification of criminal offences and during the issue of judicial decisions. It is noted that criminal law is a branch of law that is connected with the establishment of a ban on committing a certain act under the threat of the application by the state of measures of coercion of a criminal nature. The establishment of such a ban and the determination of measures of criminal-legal coercion, as a consequence, for its violation, is potentially related to the restriction of human rights. Obviously, the restriction of these rights cannot be arbitrary and chaotic, but must be subject to certain rules, ideas, which reflect the general development of society. These include the principles of criminal law, in particular the principle of criminal law, enshrined in art. Article 61 of the Constitution of Ukraine states: “No one can be brought to legal responsibility twice for the same type of offence”. According to Article 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, “no one may be brought to criminal responsibility for the same criminal offence more than once”. The article highlights the characteristic features of the investigated principle. It is stated that its role is extremely important for the internal construction of the field of law, as well as the correct normalisation and law enforcement. There are cases of violations of this principle by law enforcement bodies during the qualification of criminal offences and during the issue of judicial decisions, on examples of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and Ukrainian judicial proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights’s case-law on the application of Article 4 of the Convention is inconsistent and, in some cases, even contradictory. The principle of non bis in idem in the resolution of the question of the inadmissibility of double incrimination ensures the observance of the rights of the person during the implementation of criminal prosecution, as well as ensures the completeness of criminal legal qualification, the individualization of criminal responsibility and punishment.

5. Capacity and incapacitating conditions

Criminal Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 147-192
Author(s):  
Michael J. Allen ◽  
Ian Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Cognitive Tests ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
System P ◽  
Rational Capacity ◽  
The Mind

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. A person should only be held criminally liable where he has the capacity to understand his actions, and to recognise the consequences which may flow from them, and, having understood them, where he has the capacity to control them. The criminal law recognises the requirement of rational capacity by excepting persons who lack rational capacity from liability in certain circumstances. This chapter examines the issues of the age of criminal responsibility, insanity and the M’Naghten Rules (including analysis of the meaning of a ‘disease of the mind’ and the cognitive tests for determining whether someone is legally insane), automatism, and intoxication (with analysis of the distinction between offences of specific intent and basic intent). A revised and updated Law in Context feature explores the treatment of mentally disordered defendants and offenders in the criminal justice system.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document