free essays on criminal causation

There are many theories of crime causation, but in large groups, these theories are often narrowed significantly, as most organized criminal groups have similar goals. The criminality of persons in organized crime differs from that of conventional criminals because their organizational affiliation gives them credentialing and networking that facilitates cooperation that takes place with criminals, which allows them to commit crimes of a different variety and on a larger scale than their less organized colleagues. There are eight attributes of Organized Crime include a lack of political goals, limited membership, a hierarchical structure, a subculture which perpetuates itself through violence and is governed by its unique set of rules. The owners and workers are related and the structure is informal and kinship based. If the business expands a formal hierarchy is a necessary component, as are having skilled people within the group and divided labor therein: there will be extensive written rules and regulations, and directives will be via the hierarchy. The use of the telephone must be limited, and written communication is avoided. Information is transmitted on an intimate basis. Lengthy chains of command are impractical for organized crime, and this limits the span of control. A patron provides economic aid and protection against both the legal and illegal exaction of authority. The patron acts as a power broker between the client and the wider society, both legitimate and illegitimate. An organized crime patron will have control over a certain area or organization. He will have available a network of informants and connections; He is in a position to fence large amounts of stolen goods; He will act as a center for information; He can provide firearms and autos and other items necessary for conventional criminal activity. An organizational affiliation can enhance the.
Simply enter your paper topic to get started! Causation in Criminal Law 9 Pages 2287 Words November 2014 Saved essays Save your essays here so you can locate them quickly! Topics in this paper Actus ReusWhiteCareyCourt Of AppealmurderappleSmithWatsonDaviesDawson Popular topics The question is about the general principles of causation.How it proves one's guilty conduct as causation is part of the Actus Reus of a crime primarily the defendents conduct causing the prohibited result.First we shall see causation role in Criminal Law then we shall analyze what we need to establish for there to be a Factual and Legal causation.Then we shall see what intervening factors that can break the chain of causation.Next we will consider purpose Law Reform on the Subject of causation. The key role played by causation in the criminal law is that it must be understood that the casual requirement is not only a requirement that a criminal harm occurred and that it the accused acted with the intention,recklessness or negligence demanded by the crime charged.The absolute minimum is that the prosecution must prove a link between a unlawful act of the accused and the criminal harm,such as that is appropriate for the individual accused,rather than a different party to be accountable for the act.A simple illustration the type of link which must be made is as such: A delivers a lethal dose of poison to B in form of a poisoned glass of wine.However,before the poison could take effect.B suddenly choke on a piece of bone from the fish he was having for dinner and died.  It can be appreciated that A did not,in the manner of which we are generally disposed to perceive relations of cause and effect,the cause of death.The cause of death is as we would say and also the law would say is because of B choking on the piece of bone from his dinner. It is on occasion it is questioned whether any point is.
Grade: A-C | £0.01. The concept of causation is based upon the elements which go to make up criminal offences. Namely that there must be an actus reus or guilty act and the necessary state of mind or mens rea.To say that actus reus means the guilty act is probably an over simplification. It is not enough that the defendant has committed an act, the term is wider in its application. It includes all the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence including particular conduct, results or consequences or states of affairs. In some situations it also includes omissions but these are restricted to special circumstances. In the case of murder, for example, there must be an unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought. If the victim does not die then there may be an alternative charge of one of the more serious assaults.The prosecution must establish a causal link between the victim and the defendant. This is a matter of evidence which should be brought out at the trial. It is a matter for the jury at the end of the day. It is their decision i.e. whether to convict or to acquit. In this regard the jury is usually asked to consider two questions: Did the acts of the accused bring about the resulting harm or, in other words was the defendant responsible for the factual cause of death? Secondly, was the accused also responsible for the legal cause of death? The law accepts that there needs to be some conduct which leads to a significant contribution otherwise it would not be fair to place responsibility upon the shoulders of the accused. In the case of R v White (1910) this issue was a turning point at the trial. The defendant had intended to kill his mother. He planned to poison her and poisoned her night time drink but she died of a heart attack and not from drinking the poisoned drink. As the defendant had not factually.
The simple maxim that the accused in a criminal proceeding ought to have caused the crime is one of the potentially most important doctrines in law. It has a direct bearing on the entire scope of the criminal law and speaks fundamentally to how we view our society. The proximity between cause and effect that we consider to bring rise to a positive moral duty of care, when we refer to the imposition of punitive sanctions on members of society, is one of the most important tests of criminality. Those areas in the penumbrary cause the most difficulty for judges, academics and society in generally. Therefore the prosecution of drug dealers for the death of those they supply , doctors who were negligent and contribute to the death of their patients , Reckless transmission of HIV / Aids to sexual partners  or the denial of access to life-saving treatment  are all areas where the person being accused of the crime may or may not be considered to have ‘caused’ the harm. The quotation above by Seneca represents one of the key difficulties in establishing a chain of causation from the accused to the victim of any crime. In English law omission to act cannot be considered the cause of a crime because there is not the causal link; however there is an undoubted argument that someone who refuses to help upon seeing a crime is encouraging that action. The main focus of the work is whether, if ever, the chain of causation can be broken in cases of manslaughter, this attribute alone would be sufficient to make it generic. The work starts with a section on the general principle of causation in criminal law. We will then move onto have an in depth discussion and analysis concerning the case law on the issue before finally using the other jurisdictions and areas of law to compare to the application of the test in manslaughter. This is an incredibly vast subject matter and the restriction.
This book is about the role causation plays in the attribution of both moral responsibility and legal liability (in the law of crimes, torts, and to a lesser extent, contracts). The book strips away many of the usages of the word ‘causation’ in law and legal theory, on the grounds that such usages have little to do with causation itself. What remains is the law's use of ‘causation’ to name a natural relation that is at the heart of both ordinary and scientific explanations of the world. Some normative defense is offered as to why causation in this sense is a proper basis for assessing degrees. More This book is about the role causation plays in the attribution of both moral responsibility and legal liability (in the law of crimes, torts, and to a lesser extent, contracts). The book strips away many of the usages of the word ‘causation’ in law and legal theory, on the grounds that such usages have little to do with causation itself. What remains is the law's use of ‘causation’ to name a natural relation that is at the heart of both ordinary and scientific explanations of the world. Some normative defense is offered as to why causation in this sense is a proper basis for assessing degrees of both culpability and permissibility in morality and also in law. A more extended metaphysical defense is also offered, as to the nature of the causal relation and as to the nature of the things related by the causal relation. This normative and metaphysical analysis is used as the springboard from which to critique much of what the law currently says about causation, including the law's counterfactual test for cause in fact, its notions of intervening cause, foreseeability, harm within the risk, accomplice liability, the causal status of omissions and of non-omissive allowings, and more besides. The result is a rethinking of causation's nature and role in our legal and moral.