Strict Liability in the Criminal Law

Author(s):  
Richard A. Wasserstrom
2020 ◽  
Vol 07 (03) ◽  
pp. 314-333
Author(s):  
Hafrida Hafrida ◽  
Helmi Helmi ◽  
Bunga Permatasari

The massive forest and land fires in Indonesia have been raging and caused haze disaster. The haze disaster is not suffered only in Indonesian territory, but it has become a transnational disaster resulting in extensive economic and health quality losses. In addition, the disaster has led damage to agricultural land and disruption of diplomatic relations among affected states. The number of perpetrators of forest and land fires that increase annually shows that the enforcement of criminal law is relatively ineffective. This article covers the problem whether the principle of strict liability can be applied to the perpetrators of forest burning. In 2019, forest fires in the Jambi Province had took placed in estimated 165.86.58 hectares. The forest fire is the main source of transnational haze disaster. Law enforcement on forest fires in Jambi has not provided a deterrent effect yet. There are forty-six companies acquiring fires in their concession land areas. Unfortunately, only four of them reached court proceedings and only two companies were declared guilty by the court. Therefore, as a deterrent effort, the principle of strict liability can be applied as the main principle to handle perpetrators of forest burning.


2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Nurul Sasmita

The aims of this thesis is (1) to investigate andexplain the positions of corporations in conducting banking criminalacts, and (2) also to identify and explain the criminal responsibility ofbank as the perpetrator in banking criminal acts. This research isnormative, conceptual approach and the approach of legislationregarding responsibility principles of the corporation for banking criminalacts.Corporations have chances in committing a crime, especially bankingcriminal acts just by making a corporation recognized as a subject ofexistence apart from human beings, so that in practice there is a criminal offense committed by the corporation. The corporation takespart in the occurrence of a crime. In practice, the determination of acriminal offenseconducted by the corporation is known through two things: first, the works of the committee: they should be constructed as theyuse the principles of the liability of corporation’s criminal actions. Principally, stakeholders and officials or employees of a corporationhave the responsibility for its owncorporate actions; second, errors in the corporation,as long as it is in the science of criminal law, the overview of criminals is still oftenassociated with physical actions performed by the manufacturers(fysieke dader) but this can be overcome by the study of  "functionalactors" (functioneledader). We can prove that the action of committeeor employees of the corporation in the society act traffic concerned,the acts of the corporationerrors in the forms (dolus or culpa) must be regarded ascorporate faults.Towards the corporations that make banking criminal acts we canhave their responsibility with the principles of strict liability. Onthe principle of strict liability, it is known that the responsibility ison them even if they do not have the required mens rea. The substanceof this principle is that the perpetrator has been punished if theperpetrator may have provable conduct prohibited by the criminalprovision (actus reus) withoutsee the inner attitude. In this conception, the corporation is consideredhaving responsibility forphysical acts performed by management. A corporation convicted in principles isintended to develop a sense of justice in the corporation who commitsbanking criminal acts as stated in Article 46 paragraph (2), sothat if a corporation committed criminal acts, we can also have theresponsibility of the corporation. Keywords:Banking Criminal Acts, Corporation, ResponsibilityMenurut peraturan perundang-udangan, korporasi sebagai subyek hukum dapat dikenakan pidana sebagaimana manusia melakuka tindak pidana. Pada praktiknya, penentuan tindak pidana yang dilakukan oleh korporasi diketahui melalui dua hal, yaitu pertama tentang perbuatan pengurus yang harus dikonstruksikan sebagai perbuatan korporasimaka digunakanlah asas pertanggungjawaban pidana. Pada asas tersebut stakeholder maupun pengurus atau pegawai suatu korporasi, bertanggungjawab terhadap perbuatan korporasi itu sendiri. dan kedua tentang kesalahan pada korporasi, memang selama ini dalam ilmu hukum pidana gambaran tentang pelaku tindak pidana masih sering dikaitkan dengan perbuatan yang secara fisik dilakukan oleh pembuat (fysieke dader) namun hal ini dapat diatasi dengan ajaran “pelaku fungsional” (functionele dader). Kita dapat membuktikan bahwa perbuatan pengurus atau pegawai korporasi itu dalam lalu lintas bermasyarakat berlaku sebagai perbuatan korporasi yang bersangkutan maka kesalahan dalam bentuk (dolus atau culpa) mereka harus dianggap sebagai kesalahan korporasi. Terhadap korporasi yang melakukan tindak pidana perbankan dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban pidana dengan menggunakan asas strict liability.Pada asas strict liability diketahui bahwa pembebanan tanggung jawab pidana kepada pelakunya sekalipun pelakunya tidak memiliki mens rea yang dipersyaratkan. Adapun substansi dari asas ini adalah pelaku sudah dapat dijatuhi pidana apabila pelaku telah dapat dibuktikan melakukan perbuatan yang dilarang oleh ketentuan pidana (actus reus) tanpa melihat sikap batinnya. Dalam konsepsi ini, korporasi dianggap bertanggung jawab atas perbuatan yang secara fisik dilakukan oleh pengurus (direksi dan komisaris). Dipidananya korporasi pada asas ini dimaksudkan dapat menimbulkan rasa keadilan pada korporasi yang melakukan tindak pidana perbankan, sehingga apabila korporasi melakukan tindak pidana maka korporasi juga dapat dimintai pertanggungjawaban.Kata kunci: Korporasi, Pertanggungjawaban, Tindak Pidana Perbankan


2021 ◽  
pp. 126-150
Author(s):  
Michael J. Allen ◽  
Ian Edwards

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 meaning of negligence, arguments for and against negligence as a basis for criminal liability, the meaning of strict liability, the origins of and justifications for strict liability, the presumption of mens rea in offences of strict liability, defences to strict liability, and strict liability and the European Convention on Human Rights. The feaeture ‘The law in context’ examines critically the use of strict liability as the basis for liability in the offence of paying for the sexual services of a person who has been subject to exploitation.


2020 ◽  
pp. 139-183
Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry

This chapter examines the concept of strict, vicarious and corporate liability in the context of criminal law. It discusses the implications of strict liability for actus reus and mens rea, evaluates arguments for and against strict liability, and considers the treatment of strict liability under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The chapter explains the principle of corporate liability, highlights the problems in prosecuting a corporation for a serious crime and explains/critiques the key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007 in Great Britain. It also provides several examples of relevant cases and analyses the bases of court decision in each of them.


Author(s):  
Janet Loveless ◽  
Mischa Allen ◽  
Caroline Derry

This chapter examines the concept of strict, vicarious and corporate liability in the context of criminal law. It discusses the implications of strict liability for actus reus and mens rea, evaluates arguments for and against strict liability, and considers the treatment of strict liability under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The chapter explains the principle of corporate liability, highlights the problems in prosecuting a corporation for a serious crime and explains the key provisions of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act (CMCHA) 2007 in Great Britain. It also provides several examples of relevant cases and analyses the bases of court decision in each of them.


Author(s):  
Jonathan Herring

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. Criminal Law Concentrate covers fundamental principles of this area of law and helps the reader to succeed in exams. Topics covered include the basis of criminal liability, actus reus, mens rea, and strict liability. The chapters also examine offences such as non-fatal offences, sexual offences, homicide, inchoate offences, theft, and fraud. Defences are also examined in the final two chapters. This edition has been updated to include: recent developments in the law and new cases such as Jogee, Conroy, Golds, Ivey, and Joyce; more detail on sexual offences; more revision tips and tables to improve learning; and an ‘Exam essentials’ feature.


Author(s):  
Jonathan Herring

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. Criminal Law Concentrate covers fundamental principles of this area of law and helps the reader to succeed in exams. Topics covered include the basis of criminal liability, actus reus, mens rea, and strict liability. The chapters also examine offences such as non-fatal offences, sexual offences, homicide, inchoate offences, theft, and fraud. Defences are also examined in the final two chapters. This edition has been updated to include: recent developments in the law and new cases such as Jogee, Conroy, Golds, Ivey, and Joyce; more detail on sexual offences; more revision tips and tables to improve learning; and an ‘Exam essentials’ feature.


1995 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas W. Pogge

With each of our three criminal-law topics—defining offenses, apprehending suspects, and establishing punishments—we feel, I believe, strong moral resistance to the idea that our practices should be settled by a prospective-participant perspective. This becomes quite clear when we look at how the “reforms” suggested by institutional viewing might combine once we consider all three topics together: imagine a more extensive and swifter use of the death penalty in homicide cases coupled with somewhat lower standards of evidence; or think of backing a strict-liability criminal statute with the death penalty. Of course, such “reforms” would increase the execution of innocents; but, their proponents will tell us, any penal system involves the punishment of some innocents, and, if it provides for the death penalty, the execution of some innocents. Moreover, why is it worse for innocents to be punished than for innocents to suffer an equivalent harm in some other way? Formulated from a prospective-participant perspective: Why not run a small risk of being innocently executed in exchange for reducing, much more significantly, the risk of dying prematurely in other ways?


Author(s):  
Ahson T. Azmat

This Article examines and evaluates a distinctive, increasingly popular account of the Mistake of Law doctrine. The doctrine, deeply ingrained in American criminal law, is at the same time notoriously unclear in its scope, content, and application. A growing number of legal theorists have criticized the traditional interpretation of the doctrine; legal moralists in particular have argued that this account is conceptually confused. Because the doctrine’s use of a strict liability punishment regime does not incentivize individuals to learn the law as well as a negligence regime might, legal moralists argue that the doctrine cannot be explained by a desire to incentivize legal knowledge. In evaluating this argument, the Article defends the traditional account, often identified with the liberal positivism of Justice Holmes. The Article advances three main arguments. First, legal moralism’s claim that a negligence standard is more effective than a strict liability standard in incentivizing individuals to learn the law is false: the safe harbor provision of a negligence rule acts as an insurance effect, disincentivizing individuals to learn the law. Second, legal moralism assumes that the moral content of the criminal law is determinate, and that agents have perfectly rational, objective motivational sets. These are illicit assumptions that result in a flawed argument. Finally, the Article contends that legal moralism misinterprets the structural core of the traditional account: properly understood, the Mistake of Law doctrine employs a negligence–strict liability hybrid, and is thus more sophisticated than legal moralists realize. The Article concludes that, contrary to what a surprising number of criminal law theorists have come to accept, legal moralism fails to make a plausible case against the traditional account of the Mistake of Law doctrine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document