Page |1

TITLE OF THE RESEARCH PAPER

JUSTIFICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW

By

Name of the Student: P. RAJ KUMAR

Roll No.: 18LLB068

Semester: IV

Name of the Program: 5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

NAME OF THE FACULTY MEMBER: Prof. (Dr.) Bhavani Panda

Date of Submission:
SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW -II

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA “, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035, ANDHRA PRADESH
 Page |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I am highly indebted t0 my H0n’ble IPC Pr0fess0rs, Pr0f. Dr. Bhavani Prasad Panda sir,
f0r giving me a w0nderful 0pp0rtunity t0 w0rk 0n the t0pic: “JUSTIFICATION OF
CRIMINAL LAW” and it is because 0f his excellent kn0wledge, experience and guidance,
this pr0ject is made with great interest and eff0rt. I w0uld als0 like t0 thank my seni0rs wh0
have guided my kn0wledge 0f d0ing research 0n such significant t0pic. I w0uld always als0
take this as an 0pp0rtunity t0 thank my parents f0r their supp0rt. I have n0 w0rds t0 express
my gratitude t0 each pers0n wh0 have guided and suggested me while c 0nducting my
research w0rk.
 Page |3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. CRIMINAL LAW PURPOSE

3. TYPES OF THEORIES IN CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT

4. CRIMES CLASSIFICATION IN INDIAN PENAL CODE

5. CRIMINAL LAW IN THE UNITED STATES

6. ELEMENTS OF CRIME

7. DEFENCES TO CRIME

8. CONCLUSION

9. BIBLOGRAPHY
 Page |4

SYNOPSIS

TITLE OF THE PROJECT: JUSTIFICATION OF CRIMINAL LAW

INTRODUCTION:

Criminal Law, a branch 0f law g0verning crimes, establishes penalties and restricts the arrest
and trial 0f individuals suspected 0f wr0ngd0ing. Criminal law c0vers b0th the substantive
law discussed in this article and the criminal pr0cedure g0verning the enf0rcement and
regulati0n 0f substantive criminal law. Crime and punishment are defined by substantive
criminal law, such as what act justifies murder 0r what penalty a murderer sh0uld receive.
Criminal pr0ceedings, 0n the 0ther hand, c0ncern this same legal rule acc0mpanied and the
steps taken t0 evaluate, arrest, charge, arrest and charge, c0nvict, and punish pe0ple wh0
vi0late meaningful criminal law. Capital punishment, f0r example, explains h0w t0 undertake
a murder trial.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The 0bjective 0f the study is t0 discuss ab0ut the Justificati0n 0f Criminal law.

RESEARCH QUESTION

 Whether the r0le 0f Criminal law is defined by crime and punishment?

 H0w capital punishment related under criminal law?

RESEARCH METHODOLGY

The Research W0rk is D0ctrinal and based 0n s0urces such as Websites, J0urnals and
Internet S0urces. The referencing style f0ll0wed is BLUE B00K 19th Editi0n f0rmat 0f
citati0n. The Research pr0cess deals with c0llecting and analyzing inf0rmati0n t0 answer
questi0ns. The Research is purely descriptive in its b0undaries 0f the t0pic.
 Page |5

LITERATURE REVIEW

Jc smith, criminal law justificati0n

In this article, the auth0r discussed ab0ut criminal law ev0luti0n and explained in detail
manner.

Ameya kilara, criminal justificati0n

The auth0r 0f this article explained ab0ut the justificati0n 0f criminal law and explained in a
detailed manner ab0ut the categ0ries and the 0bjectives 0f criminal law and then c0ntinued
explaining ab0ut J0int Criminal Enterprise and Internati0nal Criminal C0urt.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The sc0pe 0f the study is restricted t0 the justificati0n 0f criminal law.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The significance is we get t0 kn0w ab0ut h0w the Indian penal c0de ev0lved
 Page |6

INTRODUCTION:

1
Criminal Law, a branch of law governing crimes, establishes penalties and restricts the arrest
and trial of individuals suspected of wrongdoing. Criminal law covers both the substantive
law discussed in this article and the criminal procedure governing the enforcement and
regulation of substantive criminal law. Crime and punishment are defined by substantive
criminal law, such as what act justifies murder or what penalty a murderer should receive.
Criminal proceedings, on the other hand, concern this same legal rule accompanied and the
steps taken to evaluate, arrest, charge, arrest and charge, convict, and punish people who
violate meaningful criminal law. Capital punishment, for example, explains how to undertake
a murder trial. In the form of the common law scheme, which is found in nations such as
England, Australia and Canada, this article addresses criminal law. Judges decide disputes
throughout the common law system by referring to the rules laid down in previous judicial
decisions. Usually, judges contrast with civil law systems found in most countries in Western
Europe, most of Africa and Latin America, and Asian countries. Judges decide cases in civil
law systems by referring to laws that are adopted by legislatures and collected in detailed
books called codes. Criminal law is distinct from what is known as civil law in legal systems
based on common law. The term civil law applies in this context to the laws governing
private relations, such as engagement, contracts, and injury claims. Criminal law, on the other
hand, regulates acts and relations that are perceived to harm society as a whole.

CRIMINAL LAW PURPOSE:

By imposing punishment on those that have already caused damage and by punishing those
who are inclined to do harm with punishment, criminal law aims to protect the public from
harm. The damage that criminal law seeks to avoid varies. Human beings may suffer physical
harm, mortality or bodily harm; loss of or destruction of property; homosexual acts; danger to
the govt; disruption of public peace and order; or damage to public health. Conduct which
threatens to cause a harmful outcome, but has not caused it yet, may be sufficient to
constitute a crime. Thus, by prohibiting actions that may lead to harmful outcomes, law often
seeks to avoid harm. In the system of justice, one purpose of both civil law and criminal law

1
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press. p. 329
 Page |7

is to react to evil behavior committed by persons. However, different responses are provided
by each kind

of law. A person who is harmed by another's behavior may bring a civil action against the
individual who caused the injury. If the victim persists, civil law best suitable that to
compensate for the harm incurred, the people who created the injury must pay cash damages.
In a criminal case, a person that acts in a manner that is considered damaging to society in
general may be prosecuted by the government. If the person is convicted (found guilty of a
crime, either a fine, imprisonment or death will punish them under criminal law. In some
cases, both civil and criminal law answers can be invoked by the unlawful and dangerous act
of a person.

TYPES OF THEORIES IN CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT:

To justify or describe the purposes of capital penalties, including vengeance, deterrence,

restriction (or incapacitation), recovery and reconstruction, numerous ideas have been
advanced. More than one of these purposes is often advanced through retribution. 2At other
occasions, one aim and disagreement with another can be encouraged by a penalty.

RETRIBUTION A

The principle of revenge holds that the morally acceptable party is punished in order for the
world to vent its rage against the criminal and inflict vengeance on him. Proponents of this
theory see retribution not as an instrument to prevent potential violence, but as a tool to
ensure that criminals pay for past wrongdoing.

DETERRENCE OF B

Many who support the theory of deterrence claim that the suffering caused will dissuade the
perpetrator (and others from committing the crime if punishment is enforced on a person who
commits a crime. It is defined as special deterrence because the principle applies to the
individual person that committed the crime. Specific deterrence explains the impact that
deterrence has when it acts as a public precedent or threat that prevents similar offences from
being committed by individuals other than the original perpetrator.

C RESTRICTION
2
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press. p. 324
 Page |8

INCARCERATION OF D

Rehabilitation of the victim is another potential purpose of criminal justice. Rehabilitation

advocates aim to deter crime by supplying offenders with the requisite education and care to
eradicate violent pasts, as well as the abilities to become active citizens.

RESTAURATION E

The restoration philosophy takes a perpetrator approach to violence that stresses victims'
recovery (compensation). Supporters of this theory support restoring the victim and
establishing positive positions for victims in the criminal justice process, instead of focusing
on the prosecution of offenders. For example, if the killer is convicted by the judge, relatives
of a murder victim will be encouraged to speak about the effects of the death. 3Organizers of
this theory think that such participation of victims in the process helps to heal the damage
caused by crime and promotes reconciliation with the community.

F DISPUTES AMONG GOALS

The numerous justifications are not necessarily exclusive for criminal punishment. A specific
punishment can advance several objectives at the same time. For example, a period of
incarceration may help to incapacitate the offender, prevent those in society from performing
similar crimes, and at the same time provide the offender with an incentive for rehabilitative
care. The aims of punishment, but at the other hand, can at times clash. The theories of
punishment and deterrence advocate for traumatic experiences, like harsh jail care, to be
imposed on the criminal; but the prison atmosphere may not be favorable to, and thus may
defeat, recovery. All the purposes of criminal law are discussed by no one principle of
punishment. In the reasoning of the lawmakers who determine the ranges of punishment for
different offences, the judges and prosecutors who sentence inmates within these categories,
and the probation authorities who do have the right to remove those prisoners, a mixture of
hypotheses and priorities plays a part.

3
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press. p. 324
 Page |9

CRIMES CLASSIFICATION IN INDIAN PENAL CODE:

Crimes are defined in several various ways: crimes of common law against statutory crimes,
and crimes mala in se (morally corrupt in oneself) versus offences mala prohibit (criminal
only because the law says so). The separation of crimes into felony convictions or
misdemeanors is an important classification. 4This disparity is based on the seriousness of the
offence and is rooted in common law. Felony charges are offences punishable by death or
incarceration in a federal prison or penitentiary in many counties in the United States, and
misdemeanors are those punishable by a fine or imprisonment in a municipal jail. In many
other jurisdictions, offences punishable by prison for one year or more are federal crimes,
while those punished by prison sentence for much less than a year are misdemeanors. (The
word jurisdiction authority of a governmental body, such as a country or a county, or the area
over which that power is exercised.) Since the punishments for offences it identifies are
defined by each jurisdiction, a misdemeanour in one jurisdiction can constitute a felony in
another. There is an additional category for petty crimes in some states, often called
infractions, which are typically punishable by a small fine.

CRIMINAL LAW IN UNITED STATES:

They brought with them their argued that the government from the English settlers who came
to America in the 1600s. English common law remained the basis of law in the United States
after the American Revolution (1775-1783). Although U.S. law is rooted in the tradition of
English common law, it has evolved in unique ways to meet U.S. society's needs and
requirements. Common law established the framework for defining criminal conduct in the
area of criminal law; however, formatted statutes were adopted that either amended those
definitions or provided new ones. Thus, all the court cases today are based not on common
law, but on criminal laws characterised by statute.

Origins of a Common Act

A quarter century or more ago, common law started to shift in England. The English
Government (legislature) did not hold a meeting regularly until the mid-17th century. As a
result, judges have often created, categorised, and imposed sentences for people instead of
legislators. As differentiated from statutory crimes, many of the crimes thus created, calle

4
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press. p. 324
 P a g e | 10

common law crimes, still influence the definition in England and the United States.
Manslaughter and murder, chaos, rape, robbery, robbery, and arson (all common law crimes)
and simple assault, perjury, fraud, bribery, and conspiracy are one of the major common law
crimes (all common law misdemeanors). However, even in the early years, gaps sometimes
did appear in the system of criminal law created by judges, and statutes were enacted by the
legislature to cover the holes in the description of crimes in common law.

B Crimes under Statute

Although common law provides the foundation for the definition of crimes, statutes have
been enacted by federal and state legislatures that specifically define the aspects (parts) of a
crime. Common law judges, for example, defined rape as sexual intercourse, against her will
through the use or threat of force, by a man with a female who was not his wife. The
components of the common law crime of rape have been modified by some modern statutes.
For instance, the perpetrator can be either male or female under some statutes, and a husband
can be discovered guilty of raping his wife. In contemporary days, both in England and the
United States, the task of defining crimes has been almost totally taken over by legislatures.
Judges rarely, if ever, create new interpretations of crime, although they still theoretically
have that authority in England and in many states of the United States.

Common law predominated in defining crimes until the late 18th century, and there were
relatively few, not more than 20 or 30. Today, in England and in the United States, statutes
specify dozens of crimes. Legislatures have classified matters that judges had never even
thought about three centuries ago as new statutory crimes, such as carjacking, trying to bribe
student athletes, and making a false statement in link with the registering of stocks and bonds.

Although the pattern is to introduce additional crimes by law, there is a tendency to disappear
in the next era for certain crimes of one era to a lesser extent. For instance, jurisdictions that
once punished death by witchcraft no longer recognise it at all as a crime. Many legislatures
have eliminated other crimes once prevalent in common law countries, such as adultery,
promiscuity, sodomy, and blasphemy. In jurisdictions in which they remain offences, these
activities are often overlooked by law enforcement authorities.

C Lawmaking Authority
 P a g e | 11

5
The American Government has a federal government system which means that power is split
between such a central authority and several regional authorities (Federalism). Consequently,
the power to make law is split between the global government and the state governments of
the 50 states, including criminal law. Local parliament has the power to enact regulations as
well.

The national govt derives its constitutional authority from the United States Constitution. The
Constitution gives authority over these limited subjects to the federal government, such as the
power to tax, regulate interstate trade, declare war, and regulate mail. Such powers have
included an implied power to define some offences. The taxation power, for example
includes the power to make it a crime not to file a return on income tax or to underplay
income in an exchange that is filed. The control over mail includes the implicit authority to
make it a felony to defraud (lie by deception) or distribute indecent publications using the
mail.

The Constitution also expressly grants the authority to classify criminal activity. It gives the
federal government, for example, the power to punish money laundering, treason, and
felonies willing to commit on the high seas (such as piracy) and to regulate federally used
land areas in the United States, such as military bases and national parks. The federal
government can protect itself from damage as well. It has therefore been defined in federal
courts as criminal sedition (inciting government dissatisfaction), bribery of government
authorities, and perjury (providing false testimony). The federal government has significant
power over civil cases in federal territories, a power similar to that retained within its own
borders by states. The states retain broad authority over matters n’t really delegated by the
U.S. to make law, such as criminal law. Constitution to the national govt or denied to the
states specifically. In fact, the states are primarily responsible for the concept and
enforcement of criminal law. Under state criminal codes, the large bulk of all criminal
prosecutions actually occur in state courts. Each state has so-called police powers within its
own territory to make and enforce such laws as it deems fair or reasonable for the promotion
of public health, safety, morality, or welfare.

ELEMENTS OF CRIME:

5
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press. p. 324
 P a g e | 12

In order for conduct to necessarily entail a crime, certain components, or variables, must
coexist. A individual must commit an act to be guilty of the crime. Criminal liability for

thoughts without action is not imposed. The person acting must do so deliberately, i.e. his or
her behaviour must not be unintentional or involuntary.

THE UNLAWFUL ACT A

A person must have either performed a volunteer physical act or refused to respond when he
or she would have a legal duty to do so in order to be guilty of a crime. In other words, for
bad thoughts alone, there really is no criminal prosecution. A child can therefore wish a
parent dead earnestly and may even believe about killing the parent. But even if the parent is
to die coincidentally, the child is not a killer, given that he or she has not taken any action to
kill the parent. Most crimes, such as pulling a trigger or pushing a knife in killing or lighting
a fire in arson, are decided to commit by a particular effect. In terms of omission or failing to
act, some crimes, however are defined. For instance, not filing a tax return is a crime. If he or
she fails to act, a person who has an unique bond with another or has willingly presumed a
duty to help someone else may be guilty of a crime. For instance, a parent is compelled to
rescue his or her child from danger, and if it is physically possible for the family member or
lifeguard to do so, a lifeguard on duty must try to rescue a drowning swimmer. Although
there is a limited obligation to rescue a person at risk, parents owe allegiance to their small
kids and surfers to the swimmers in their care.

B MENTALLY FAULT
The individual also must have the intention of acting in a harmful way in order to be guilty of
the crime. This element is sometimes referred to as the specification of psychological fault or
mens rea, a Latin term meaning "guilty mind." Therefore, many crimes are expressed in terms
of acting or bringing about a result intentionally, knowingly, intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently, or conducting oneself with the intention of achieving a specific
result. The necessity for mens rea differentiates between accidental or unintended acts and
behaves for which an individual is legally responsible. Generally speaking, a person must
have meant the actual harm that actually resulted-that is, unless the terrorist charge and the
necessary intent agree, there is no criminal liability. Thus it is not murder if a man wants to
kill his brother and inadvertently runs over and ends up killing his brother, who occurs to be
crossing the street, while driving to the store to buy a gun for this purpose. On the other hand,
if one decides to harm a specific person or object and causes similar harm to another person
 P a g e | 13

or object in attempting to carry out that intent, one's intent will be transferred from the aim
person or object to the person or object seriously abused. For example, if a woman shoots a

intention of killing him but misses the man because of poor purpose and hits and kills
children nearby, the intent of the shooter to kill the man is transported to the child and the
woman is responsible for the murder of the child. There has been a tendency in recent years
to depart from the basic premise of criminal law that requires a specific state of mind (intent)
and to define statutes crimes that provide for criminal liability without causing harm
intentionally. The mental state of the offender is irrelevant in the case of so rigorous offences.
Typical examples of stringent statutes are laws against having to serve alcohol to a minor or
against misidentifying food and drug products.

DEFENCES TO CRIME:

Defense is a vague term that applies to various statements that seek to contradict (refute),
minimise (moderate), explain, or excuse behaviour that has been considered criminal by the
state. It is factual to some defences. An accused individual, for example, may give an alibi
that indicates that at the time the crime occurred, he or she was not present at the scene. Other
excuses, such as madness, accept that the criminal committed the crime but argue that he or
she must not be held liable. Any of the defences help to clarify the nature of the action and
dispute criminal responsibility. For example, in self-defense, if a person kills another the law
states that the prohibited act was reasonable and not fit for punishment.

A MADNESS, A MADNESS

6
The defence of insanity is based on the notion that there should be no penalty under criminal
law for those who are unable to regulate their conduct or understand the criminality of their
behavior due to mental defect or disease. The insanity defence is a criminal liability legal test
that does not necessarily adhere to the mental disorder medical description. While when it is
invoked, a great deal of attention is generally created, the accused person is seldom used and
rarely effective. The measure of insanity applied in England beginning in the mid-19th
century and much of the United States was regarded as the M'Naghten law. The English case
of Daniel M'Naghten, who was tried for murder in 1843, was the basis of this test. M'Naghten
was found not innocent because he was suffering from a mental disorder that stopped him

6
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press. p. 324
 P a g e | 14

from M'Naghten, wh0 was tried f0r murder in 1843, was the basis 0f this test. M'Naghten was
f0und n0t inn0cent because he was suffering fr0m a mental dis0rder that st0pped him fr0m
rec0gnising whether his c0nduct was right 0r wr0ng. The M'Naghten rule pr0vides f0r the
pr0tecti0n 0f insanity f0r defense att0rneys wh0 at the m0ment 0f the criminal act, did n0t
realise the purp0se 0r wr0ngfulness 0f their acts as a result 0f mental illness. The M'Naghten
test includes pr00f 0f a mental dis0rder that has damaged the capacity 0f the defendant t0
discriminate between right and wr0ng. The M'Naghten rule has been augmented by several
jurisdicti0ns with the illustrate test. Under this standard, if a mental dis0rder 0r c0nditi0n
made him 0r her incapable 0f abstaining fr0m a criminal act, an accused c0uld be f0und n0t
guilty 0f insanity.

The M'Naghten and illustrate tests are c0mbined and m0dernised by an0ther f0rm 0f insanity
defence. Jurisdicti0ns that have ad0pted this standard pr0vide the defence 0f insanity if as a
result 0f mental defect 0r dis0rder, the defendant lacked substantial ability at the time 0f the
criminal act, either t0 understand the crime (wr0ngfulness) 0f the behavi0r 0r t0 c0nf0rm his
0r her acti0ns t0 the requirements 0f law. A defence 0f diminished mental capacity 0r
diminished capacity is accepted by s0me jurisdicti0ns. Under this defence, a pers0n c0nvicted
0f a crime c0uld argue that he 0r she did n0t have the necessary mental fault f0r the crime
charged as a result 0f injury defect sh0rt 0f insanity. Evidence 0f the diminished capacity 0f
the accused pers0n can decrease the seri0usness 0f the crime charged 0r 0f the pris0n
sentence up0n c0nvicti0n.

B ERA

The y0uth 0f a suspect has l0ng been a shield against perjury pr0secuti0n because children
are c0nsidered unable t0 make reas0nable ch0ices f0r which they can be held liable. A child
bel0w 7 years 0f age is c0nsidered t00 y0ung t0 be criminally liable under c0mm0n law.
With0ut evidence that he 0r her kn0ws the difference between right and wr0ng, a child
between the ages 0f 7 and 14 will n0t be accused 0f a crime. In certain cases, a child 14 years
0f age 0r 0lder is c0nsidered t00 c0mpetent t0 be criminally acc0untable. 7These subjective
c0mm0n law categ0ries have been aband0ned by several jurisdicti0ns and laws defining
juvenile crime have been passed. Children under a certain age (which differs fr 0m state t0
state) wh0 c0mmit 0ffences are deemed guilty 0f delinquency rather than a criminal act under
7
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press. p. 328
 P a g e | 15

these laws, based 0n the principle that children need assistance rather than retributi 0n.
H0wever s0me laws all0w y0ung pe0ple t0 be pr0secuted as adults f0r seri0us crimes, such
as assassinati0n, rape, and armed r0bbery.

C INTOXICATION

Int0xicati0n can pr0duce a mental state resembling insanity, whether induced by alc 0h0l,
illegal drugs, 0r prescripti0n medicati0ns. An int0xicated criminal is frequently unable t0
discriminate between right and wr0ng 0r may have an irresistible impulse. It must be
unintenti0nal f0r impairment t0 be used as a shield against a crime (f0r example, if 0ne is
f0rced t0 c0nsume an int0xicant, 0r if 0ne c0nsumes an int0xicant with0ut kn0wledge 0f its
mentally disabling nature).

THE D DURESS

An pers0n wh0 c0mmits crimes because an0ther exerts extreme c0ntr0l 0r pressure 0n them
may have the privilege 0f c0erci0n (als0 kn0wn as c0erci0n). M0st jurisdicti0ns rec0gnise
the pr0tecti0n 0f c0erci0n 0nly where (1) the threat applied is immediate and severe, such as
the danger 0f death 0r griev0us physical injury; (2) the c0erci0n is such that the crime w0uld
have been c0mmitted by a reas0nable individual in the p0siti0n 0f the 0ffender; and (3) the
0ffender did n0t engage kn0wingly in creating situati0ns where c0erci0n was pr0bable. F0r
instance, if a w0man murders a man because if she d0esn't, an0ther pers0n wh0 is pr0tected
threatens t0 kill her, she will have the pr0tecti0n 0f intimidati0n 0n any murder charge.

THE E ERROR

Mistake 0f fact c0nstitutes a criminal liability defence if it can be sh 0wn that the c0nvicted
pers0n lacks the mental fault needed t0 c0mmit the crime in dispute due t0 the err0r. This
err0r negates the intenti0n t0 steal that is needed f0r the crime 0f larceny if a pers0n is taking
an0ther's c0at, wr0ngly thinking that it is his 0r her 0wn c0at. In the 0ther hand, if a pers0n
takes an0ther's c0at with the intenti0n 0f stealing, falsely thinking that the c0at bel0ngs t0 a
3rd party, this misunderstanding d0es n0t negate the m0tive 0f the pers0n t0 steal, and he 0r
she is guilty 0f larceny. In s0me circumstances, even th0ugh the victim has made a mistake
that nullifies his 0r her intenti0n t0 c0mmit a crime, a crime is c0mmitted. F0r instance, even
th0ugh he 0r she sincerely th0ught the 0ther pers0n was 0lder, a pers0n wh0 has sexual
 P a g e | 16

c0ntact with a min0r (a pers0n wh0 is under a certain age defined by statute) can be
c0nvicted 0f statut0ry rape.

The general rule is that penal law ign0rance 0r 0missi0n is n0t a defence t0 criminal liability.
Theref0re if an individual engages in a criminal act with 0ut understanding that the act is
unlawful, the err0r is n0t a criminal liability defence. This rule sh 0uld apply even th0ugh the
err0r is based 0n a lawyer's advice, since ign0rance 0f the law will be pr0m0ted by a c0ntrary
rule. H0wever certain c0urts accept the pr0tecti0n 0f ign0rance if the alleged 0ffender (1) has
behaved in a reas0nable, g00d-faith manner 0n the basis 0f a statute 0r judicial judgement
which is subsequently f0und t0 be invalid; 0r (2) has pr0perly relied 0n an inc0rrect
interpretati0n 0r declarati0n 0f law by a public 0fficial lawfully resp0nsible f0r interpreting,
administering 0r implementing the law.

SELF-DEFENCE F

8
The law 0ffers a defence as a general rule f0r acts that seem fairly appr0priate t0 defend
0neself fr0m the pr0bable (immediate) use 0f unlawful f0rce. F0r example if a pers0n
reas0nably believes that deadly f0rce is appr0priate t0 av0id an act that w0uld directly cause
death 0r seri0us b0dily injury t0 himself 0r herself, an individual is justified in the use 0f
deadly f0rce in self-defence. If 0ne acts in self-defence, 0nly with f0rce equal t0 the f0rce
f0ught against 0r required t0 resist the unlawful assault can 0ne resp0nd. Thus, except in
reacti0n t0 deadly f0rce, 0ne sh0uld n0t use deadly f0rce. Generally, 0ne wh0 initiated 0r
triggered an assault c0uld n0t assert self-defence.

ENTRAPMENT OF G

The defence 0f entrapment can be asserted by a pers0n wh0 is c0erced by the p0lice t0
c0mmit crimes that he 0r she might n0t 0therwise have c0mmitted. The individual must
dem0nstrate that the c0ncept 0f c0mmitting the crime 0riginated with a law enf0rcement
0fficer in 0rder t0 pr0ve the defence, that the 0fficer f0rced him 0r her t0 c0mmit the crime,
and that he 0r she was n0t prepared t0 c0mmit such a crime. If the p0lice 0fficer merely
pr0vides the individual with a desirable 0pp0rtunity t0 c0mmit crime, f0r example by
pretending t0 be drunk in 0rder t0 catch a thief wh0 has been attacking drunk pe0ple, a
pers0n d0es n0t effectively assert the pr0tecti0n 0f entrapment.
8
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press. p. 329
 P a g e | 17

PARTIES TO A CRIME:

Criminal law defines degrees 0f liability depends 0n the extent 0f engagement 0f the
defendant in the crime. A pers0n wh0 enters the bank, targets the teller with a gun, and asks
f0r all the cash is categ0rised differently fr0m the individual wh0 later hides the drug dealer
fr0m the p0lice. F0ur essential types 0f parties t0 criminal activity are defined by c 0mm0n
law: (1) a principal during the first degree, (2) a principal in the graduate pr0gram, (3) an
access0ry bef0re the fact, and (4) an access0ry t0 murder.

PRINCIPALS A

In the first degree, a principal is a pers 0n wh0 with the required intent, actually participates in
the illegal activity that causes the harm. A principal in the graduate pr0gram is a gr0up that in
the first degree supp0rts, c0unsels, requires, 0r c0mmands the principle in the time 0f the
0ffence and is current at the l0cati0n 0f the crime. N0netheless if he 0r she is deemed
c0nstructively present, an individual wh0 is n0t at the specific crime scene can be a principal
in the sec0nd degree, f0r example, thr0ugh being cl0se en0ugh t0 assist in the c0mmissi0n 0f
the crime. F0r instance, in the sec0nd degree, the driver 0f a st0len vehicle may be
pr0ductively present and thus a principal.

B SHOES AND ACCESSORIES

An ass0ciate bef0re the fact is a party that assists 0r facilitates a crime 0r demands that a
stated crime be c0mmitted at the time 0f the crime but is n0t present at the scene. Wearables
bef0re the fact 0r members in the sec0nd degree are as acc0untable as the pers0n that actually
c0mmits the pr0hibited act f0r the crime in questi0n. As l0ng as the additi0nal 0ffences are
f0reseeable, they are n0t liable f0r all 0ther crimes c0mmitted 0f c0mmitting the crime in that
they are inv0lved. An access0ry after the fact is a party wh 0 assists, receives, 0r c0mf0rts a
wr0ngd0er, while n0t present at the c0mmissi0n 0f the crime, rec0gnising that he 0r she has
c0mmitted a crime, in 0rder t0 help the wr0ngd0er escape arrest, c0nvicti0n, 0r punishment.
The aid may be in the f 0rm 0f facilitating the escape 0r the destructi0n 0f evidence 0f the
crime.

IX OFFENCES AGAINST THE CITIZEN

 P a g e | 18

Crimes that harm pe0ple physically 0r psych0l0gically are characterised as crimes against
pers0n. Murder, assassinati0n, assault, battery, cha0s, rape, and abducti0n are am0ng these.

A SUICIDE

The crime 0f murder is br0adly described as the unlawful murder 0f a pers0n by a pers0n
wh0 intended t0 kill. First 0f all it demands that a living human be killed. S0me jurisdicti0ns
als0 0bserve the c0mm0n law rule that in a year and a day after the accused c 0mmitted the
fatal w0und, death must 0ccur f0r a murder t0 exist. The c0nventi0nal definiti0n 0f murder
required that the murderer had a certain m 0tive, kn0wn as the f0reth0ught 0f malice. It needs
n0 real hate, ill will 0r spite. Malice predicti0n is present under any 0f the f0ll0wing
circumstances under judicial definiti0ns and certain statutes:

(1) With0ut reas0n 0r excuse, a pers0n intends t0 kill an0ther and succeeds in d0ing s0. The
intent t0 kill can be inferred in s0me jurisdicti0ns fr0m the deliberate use 0f a danger0us
weap0n against 0thers by an individual.

(2) An pers0n aims t0 inflict a seri0us injury 0utside 0f death 0n an0ther, but instead brings
ab0ut an accidental death.

(3) A pers0n behaves in an extremely reckless manner that sh0ws a "depraved heart" (m0ral
c0rrupti0n) 0r "call0us indifference" t0 the value 0f human life and thus causes the death 0f
an0ther with0ut intending t0 d0 s0. If a pers0n sh0t a gun int0 a cr0wd 0f pe0ple, murdering
an unarmed bystander, it w0uld be an example 0f this s0-called depraved-heart murder.

(4) 9During the pr0cess 0f c0mmitting a crime, a pers0n causes an0ther's death, and the death
was the inevitable c0nsequence 0f the fel0ni0us act. Such a killing is kn 0wn as murder by a
crime. Any acc0mplice in the fel0ny c0mmissi0n may be guilty 0f murder as well. Thus,
even th0ugh the r0bber did n0t wish t0 kill 0r inflict seri0us harm, a r0bber wh0se gun
accidentally g0es 0ff f0r a r0bbery and kills the victim 0f the r0bbery is guilty 0f murder, and
this crime was n0t s0 careless as t0 display a depraved heart. In 0rder t0 be held liable f0r the
fel0ny killing, the accused must be c0nvicted 0f the underlying fel0ny (in this case, r0bbery).

B MANSLAUGHTERING

9
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law. Westbury,
NY: The Foundation Press. p. 331
 P a g e | 19

Manslaughter is 0ften l00sely defined as the illegal killing 0f s0me0ne with0ut the th0ught 0f
malice. Generally, it is split int0 tw0 branches: v0luntary and inv0luntary manslaughter.
Manslaughter, like murder, is split int0 degrees in s0me states, such that what 0ne state calls
v0luntary manslaughter calls an0ther first-degree manslaughter.

B1 MANSLAUGHTER VOLUNTARY

In general, v0luntary manslaughter inv0lves the deliberate killing 0f a human being by an

angered individual in c0nditi0ns that might cause an unc0ntr0llably angry pers0n t0 bec0me
rati0nal. F0r instance, if it is c0mmitted in the heat 0f passi0n triggered by sufficient
pr0v0cati0n, a deliberate killing may be differentiated manslaughter (rather than murder).
The finding 0f the killer's partner in the act 0f having relati0ns with an0ther is a c0mm0n
pr0v0cati0n. The killer is guilty 0f manslaughter rather than fel0ny murder if the pr0v0cati0n
w0uld ar0use intense anger in a n0rmal pers0n, but the killer was n0t in fact, angered when
the killing happened.

B2 MANSLAUGHTER INVOLUNTARY

10
Inv0luntary manslaughter, usually c0nsidered a less seri0us crime than v0luntary
manslaughter, includes accidental killings that d0, n0netheless, require s0me degree 0f
blame. There is reckless manslaughter, a c0unterpart t0 depraved-heart murder, when a
pers0n behaves in a reckless 0r imprudent way and thereby causes an0ther pers0n t0 die.
Examples 0f this type 0f inv0luntary manslaughter are unintenti0nally hitting and killing a
pers0n while driving a car recklessly 0r c0ps killing s0me0ne t0 death while carelessly
h0lding a rev0lver. When death 0ccurs during the perf0rmance 0f a misdemean0ur,
misdemean0ur manslaughter, a parallel 0f fel0ny murder, happens when a pers0n runs a red
light, hits and kills a pedestrian cr0ssing the street.

C ATTACK AND BATTERIES

In fact, aggravated assault are tw0 different c0mm0n law 0ffences, alth0ugh the terms are
s0metimes used different w0rds as a single phrase and run t0gether. They vary largely fr0m
murder and h0micide in that the victim is n0t murdered. F0r s0-called accidental deaths and
batteries, laws generally rec0mmend greater penalties than f0r simple assaults and batteries.
Attack and battery with a lethal weap0n 0r with the intenti0n 0f c0mmitting any 0ther fel0ny,
such as rape, are theref0re generally punished as fel0nies, whereas misdemean0urs are
10
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law.
Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press. p. 334
 P a g e | 20

c0nsidered plain assault and battery. An assault is described as an unlawful attempt t 0 inflict
b0dily harm 0n an0ther, 0r the risk 0f d0ing s0 c0upled with the ability t0 carry 0ut the threat
immediately. Even if the perpetrat0r d0es n0t actually t0uch, hit, 0r cause physical harm t0
an0ther pers0n, an assault may be c0mmitted. In s0me jurisdicti0ns, if a w0man assaults a
man with a gun that she rec0gnizes but he d0es n0t kn0w is unl0aded, it is an attack f0r 0ne
pers0n t0 give every pers0n cause t0 fear 0r anticipate immediate b0dily harm. If an attack
ends in b0dy interacti0n, a battery is m0unted. When an individual unlawfully applies f0rce
t0 s0me 0ther human being, battery happens. Any 0bjecti0nable c0ntact can c0nstitute a
battery, even if it d0es n0t cause physical pain. A fist, knife, stick, r 0ck, 0r any 0ther
instrument can trigger the f0rce. An aggravated battery is the c 0mm0n-law crime 0f mayhem,
a phrase derived fr0m the w0rd maim. Mayhem 0ccurred in its 0riginal meaning when a
pers0n kn0wingly and malici0usly stripped the victim 0f a part 0f the b0dy, including an arm,
hand, arm, leg, f00t, 0r eye, with0ut which the victim was less capable 0f fighting in the
king's service. Currently, severe and irreversible disfiguring injuries, such as slitting the lips,
neck, t0ngue, 0r n0se, as well as debilitating injuries, are typically pr 0tected by the statut0ry
crime 0f mayhem. Many laws require a particular m0tive t0 cause the injuries caused t0 the
victim.

D RAPE FORCIBLE AND STATUTORY

11
F0rcible rape refers t0 the c0mm0n law crime 0f rape. It was described by a man wh 0 was
n0t her husband, with0ut the c0nsent 0f the w0man, as unlawful sexual interc0urse with a
female. Rape may 0ccur when either f0rce 0r the threat 0f death 0r seri0us b0dily harm
0verc0mes the resistance 0f the w0man. Rape can als0 entail sex with a w0man wh0 is
unc0nsci0us 0r s0 int0xicated, drugged, 0r mentally inc0mpetent as t0 be unable t0 grant
meaningful c0nsent. S0me current laws characterise rape as f 0rced interc0urse between a
man and the w0man. Statut0ry rape is the term c0mm0nly used by a man with a w0man wh0
is n0t his wife and wh0 is bel0w the age defined by statute t0 characterise the crime 0f sexual
interc0urse. Whether 0r n0t the female gives her c0nsent is a fel0ny. The presumpti0n that
pe0ple bel0w a certain age, kn0wn as min0rs, are unable t0 make an educated, intelligent
decisi0n t0 c0nsent t0 sexual interc0urse is based 0n this crime. As a c0nsequence, even if the
man reas0nably assumes the w0man is past the c0nsent age (which differs between
11
Richard M., Bonnie; Anne M. Coughlin; John C. Jefferies Jr; Peter W. Low (1997). Criminal Law.
Westbury, NY: The Foundation Press. p. 334
 P a g e | 21

jurisdicti0ns) 0r the w0man lies ab0ut her age, the man is n0rmally resp0nsible f0r the crime.
T0 make them gender neutral, s0me states have rewritten their f0rcible and statut0ry rape
laws. A male may be deemed a victim 0f rape under these current laws, either at the hand 0f a
w0men 0r an0ther man.

KIDNAPPING E

Kidnapping usually entails the seizure, impris 0nment, and, p0ssibly, the rem0val 0f an0ther
by f0rce 0r threat 0f f0rce) against his 0r her will a crime in all jurisdicti0ns. It d0es n0t
extend t0 th0se 0perating under the jurisdicti0n 0f the rule. An aggravated f0rm 0f abducti0n
0ccurs if (1) the 0bject 0f the act is t0 acquire.

CONCLUSION:

Capital punishment, f0r example, explains h0w t0 undertake a murder trial. In the f 0rm 0f the
c0mm0n law scheme, which is f0und in nati0ns such as England, Australia and Canada, this
article addresses criminal law. Judges decide disputes thr 0ugh0ut the c0mm0n law system by
referring t0 the rules laid d0wn in previ0us judicial decisi0ns. Usually, judges c0ntrast with
civil law systems f0und in m0st c0untries in Western Eur0pe, m0st 0f Africa and Latin
America, and Asian c0untries. Judges decide cases in civil law systems by referring t 0 laws
that are ad0pted by legislatures and c0llected in detailed b00ks called c0des. Criminal law is
distinct fr0m what is kn0wn as civil law in legal systems based 0n c0mm0n law. The term
civil law applies in this c0ntext t0 the laws g0verning private relati0ns, such as engagement,
c0ntracts, and injury claims. Criminal law, 0n the 0ther hand, regulates acts and relati0ns that
are perceived t0 harm s0ciety as a wh0le.

BIBLOGRAPHY:

1) Justificati0n 0f criminal law by JC smith

2) Criminal law justificati0n by Amaya kaira