Question 1

In the given scenario,X being a four year old girl, takes a chocolate bar off of a shelf in a
store without paying for it or asking for permission from their guardian. When determining
whether x should be held liable criminally it is imperative to consider the requirements of
criminal liability relevant to this situation whilst also taking into account the diverging effects
of age on the presumption of criminal capacity.

Criminal liability needs certain criteria to be fulfilled such as voluntary acts and culpable
mental state.In the case of X her age plays a pivotal role in determining her criminal
liability.According to the law , a child under the age of 7 doesn’t posses the criminal capacity
to commit a crime meaning that a child below the age of 7 years old cannot be held liable
criminally for his or her actions. Children below the age of 7 are regarded as infants and are
consequently presumed not to possess the needed maturity and understanding involved in
fully understanding the weight of their actions and the consequences that come with them.

The keys element of criminal liability is culpable mental state.Young children due to their
poorly developed cognitive skills and lack of general life experience may not recognise or
understand theft or ownership therefore holding them accountable would lack consistency
with their level of maturity or thinking capacity. In many legal systems age related differences
in the capacity to commit crimes is recognised.

In conclusion, in this scenario given X ,a four year old girl would not and should not be held
liable for taking the chocolate bar off the shelf without paying or seeking permission. The
requirement of criminal liability that is relevant here that is disregarded is the culpable mental
state which children below the age of 7 usually lack due to their limited cognitive capacity
and moral development

Question 2

2.1 The relevant culpability in this scenario is negligence.As a nurse ,X had to fulfil a duty of
care to the patient but by not verifying the blood group before proceeding with the
transfusion failed to exercise said duty ultimately leading to the patients death.

2.2 The relevant form of culpability in this scenario is ,Dolus directus or Direct intent. X took
the conscious decision to reconcile himself with the option of shooting and maybe killing the
security guards.Although it was not his direct aim ,X intentionally shot and killed the gaurd
when they tried to stop the heist demonstrating a clear intent to inflict harm or death.

2.3 In this scenario the relevant form of culpability is Dolus directus or Direct intent.X shoots
the cat with clear intention and under the full awareness that by doing so it will shatter the
window pane of Y.By shooting regardless he clearly demonstrates the intention on damaging
Y’s property.
2.4 The form of culpability for X’s actions here is negligence.By failing to take the necessary
medication for said chronic sinusitis which is essential in managing the symptoms of the
condition this can be classified as a negligent act.The accident is a direct result of not taking
the medication as it was caused by the uncontrollable sneezing a symptom of the condition.

2.5 This scenarios form of culpability for Xs actions is Dolus directus or direct intent. X
breaks into Ys house with the premeditated intention of burning it down. X pouring petrol on
the floor and lighting it shows a conscious and purposeful intention to cause harm.

Question 3
1. b. Compliance with definitional elements
2. d. Unlawfulness
3. g. Negligence
4. d. Genocide
5. a. Excecutive
6. d. 36
7. b. Suspect
8. e. Convicted person
9. d. Accused person
10. b. Suspect
11. b. Incitement
12. a. Attempt
13. c. Common purpose
14. d. Crime
15. e. None of the above