criminal law essay example

criminal law essay example

Criminal Law Essay Exam Questions

1. Introduction

This compilation is very much related to law students, even practicing lawyers, to reap a better understanding of criminal law. It can be put to the test by using our variety of questions covering each and every topic in the subject. Numerous test questions are provided to help students gain confidence and skill in answering questions. Teachers can assign these questions to help students elicit multiple motivations for particular crimes. Short answer and essay questions at the end of each subchapter challenge students’ knowledge and understanding. Multiple-choice questions test their ability to recall and recognize the different elements of criminal law. This will provide practical education to the students in the sense that they need not refer to any guide for the selection of topics from the Criminal Law.

Criminal law is a set of rules and regulations compounded by the state or central government, which are intended to ban and punish crimes committed by a person. It regulates social conduct and proscribes threatening, harming, or otherwise endangering the health, safety, and moral welfare of people. It includes the punishment of people who violate these laws. Criminal law differs from civil law, whose emphasis is more on dispute resolution and victim’s compensation than on punishment.

2. Elements of Criminal Law

All crimes require the actus reus to be present. However, there are several exceptions in terms of mens rea. High treason was an exception, as the defendant could be convicted if proven to commit a physical act even though they did not have a guilty mind. Strict liability offenses are also an exception. These crimes require no mens rea, and the aspect of the actus reus is enough for a conviction (e.g., speeding). However, this is a controversial issue, as Lord Diplock expressed in Sweet v Parsley, that the presumption that mens rea is always required was a “rebuttable one.”

The actus reus is the physical element of a crime. It must be proven that the defendant committed a voluntary act. It is impossible to commit a crime if there is no act. However, sometimes a failure to act can constitute a criminal act, which is referred to as an omission. There must be a causal connection between the defendant’s act and the harm caused. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an act was committed and was the cause of the direct harm in the situation.

An act committed is termed as a crime if it is accompanied by a guilty state of mind. Accusations of crimes can have severe implications. If charges are proven, a criminal record will be created. Contrary to civil wrongs, crimes are seen as offenses against the state. Therefore, the state is usually responsible for bringing a prosecution. A precept in law states that every crime is composed of two parts: the physical act that occurred and the mental element. The prosecution must prove these elements in order for a defendant to be convicted. These are known as the actus reus and the mens rea.

3. Defenses in Criminal Law

The classification of a defense could also hinder its development, as was illustrated in the case with battered women who killed their husbands – the defense claimed they were provoked to killing, which would have been a justification, and so they were unable to plead self-defense. If a defense also does not fit the label of a justification or an excuse, it is often labeled as a rationalization. An example is found with necessity.

The section argues that the classification of a defense as one of justification, excuse, or a rationalization is unhelpful and there are problems with the defenses that are so defined. For a start, justification and excuse have different effects. Justification is a complete defense, whereas an excuse can reduce what would be a conviction for a more serious offense, but it does not eliminate liability. An example of this is found with duress, which is typically classified as an excuse, but under s7(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, there is no defense to murder. This would rule out duress as a defense for somebody who has been forced to kill another person.

The next section of the essay will begin by looking into the various defenses that are possibly in a criminal case. The main aim of this section is to consider the concepts of: Justification, Excuse, and Rationalizations.

4. Criminal Law Procedures

This is the area where criminal and civil law often overlap. It is likely that in the trials of criminal cases, defendants will wish to make a claim in tort against the police, prison authorities, or other public bodies. In the first instance, cases of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution leap to mind. False imprisonment is the “intentional and total restraint of the liberty of the claimant”. Unlike the tort of the same name, in the criminal sense, the claimant need not be aware of the imprisonment at the time it occurs. Both false imprisonment and malicious prosecution provide an action in tort by way of trespass. As a result, the claimant will not have to prove damage has been done as it is presumed that damage has occurred. This was shown in the case of Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis where it was found that police officers had insufficient evidence to make an arrest. The claimant stated that the police had no right to enter his house. He was arrested and taken to the station where he was detained for 18 hours before being charged and bailed. Charges against the claimant were eventually dropped. The case went to trial where it was found that damages would be awarded to the claimant. This is supported through the change found in s24 and s28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. S24 deals with the power of a constable on an arrestable offence to a) arrest and b) enter and search any premises. S28 states, “a constable exercising the power to a) enter and search any premises may be required to force entry.” In both cases, the constraint to the freedom was unintentional and the claimant was eventually acquitted. Whether a claim is successful or not, the operation of the European Convention of Human Rights has meant that damages in these cases can be substantial. This was shown in the case of T v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis where a man who had been wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for offences of conspiracy to rob and dishonestly receiving stolen goods was awarded damages exceeding £700,000 in respect of the time spent in custody and the loss of his record.

5. Contemporary Issues in Criminal Law

The issue of intoxication dates back several centuries in criminal law. The difficulty for the courts is that they have to distinguish between general drunken behavior and the state which causes the defendant to be incapable of forming the mens rea of the offense. Another issue is when it comes to crimes of specific intent, the courts have been reluctant to provide a defense to voluntary intoxication. For instance, in DPP for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349, the defendant tried to use intoxication as a defense for attempted murder because he thought he had killed the victim but was mistaken. It was held that there was no defense as the mens rea had been formed beforehand. However, there are other instances in specific intent offenses where intoxication has been regarded as relevant to establish whether the defendant formed the mens rea.