Deck 2: Criminal Law:the Foundation of Criminal J Ustice

Question 1

Is a criminal act by a person who is a "victim" of an unjust society morally wrong? Who should determine if, and to what extent, a society is unjust?

Answer 1

Determine whether a crime committed by a person who experiences social unjust is morally wrong:
According to Mr. JR, crime committed by a person who has undergone socially unfair treatment is morally right. The crime committed by a victim of social discrimination is not wrong. It is because every individual contracts with the society to gain social benefits in return of obeying law and order.
If an individual faces discrimination in the society, he or she will go against the society. Such individuals commit crimes because of social deprivation. They revert in order to claim their rights in the society. Therefore, on moral grounds victims of injustice are not wrong when they commit a crime.
Determine who should decide whether the society is unfair:
A criminal commits crime because the society treats him or her unfairly. In the criminal's point of view, he or she has already decided that the society is unfair. Once the court looks into the case, the jury should decide whether the convict faced discrimination in the society.
Conclusion:
Society is not fair to everyone. This unfairness develops hatred among the victims of social discrimination. It makes them commit crime. Such individuals are not morally wrong because they are also the victims of unfair society.

Question 2

Why is mens rea (criminal intent) such an important element to establish in a criminal case? Should parents be held criminally liable for the gang-related activities of their children?

Answer 2

"Mens rea":
"Mens rea" is a Latin term, which states that the court should punish the criminal for his or her intention to commit a particular crime. A criminal does not commit a crime unless he has the intent to do so. Therefore, "mens rea" suggests that the court should convict for the intention to commit crime.
The four mental states mentioned in "Mens rea" are as follows:
• Purposely
• Knowingly
• Recklessly
• Negligently
Importance of "mens rea":
If the court convicts criminals for their unlawful acts, it might convict an insane individual also. This seems unfair because the court will punish the person who has not intended to do so. "Mens rea" makes it necessary to prove the intention of crime. It will protect criminals from false convictions.
Moreover, "mens rea" differentiates between different states of mind. This will help the court in convicting criminals based of the level of mental state of the criminal. Thus, "mens rea" ensures rightful conviction of convicts.
Criminal liability of parents for unlawful activities of their children:
The court should not blame parents for mistakes committed by their children. Parents can influence their children only by giving advice. They do not have any control over children's state of mind. However, if the activities of parents have direct influence on children, the court can hold parents liable.
Conclusion:
"Mens rea" states that the court should punish the criminal for his or her intention to commit a particular crime. Purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently are the four mental states that are mentioned in "mens rea". It helps in rightful conviction based on intent.

Question 3

Should the insanity defense be allowed? Should all states adopt "guilty, but mentally ill" or "guilty, but insane" statutes? Why or why not?

Answer 3

Opinion on allowing insanity defense:
It is necessary to allow insanity defense. Some individuals commit crimes without any criminal intent. They commit crimes because of weak mental health. In such situations, the court should give relaxation to insane individuals. The court should not punish them. Instead, insane convicts should undergo proper medical treatment.
Adoption of "guilty, but mentally ill" statutes:
The courts should adopt "guilty, but mentally ill" statutes. It will help the court to take insane individuals into custody. Thus, insane individuals will not cause any harm to the society. Meanwhile, the court should ensure that insane criminals get medical treatment in mental hospitals. After the successful medical treatment, the court should retain them in jails.
Conclusion:
Allowing insanity defense helps insane criminals to get relaxation from court convictions. The court should not punish them. Instead, insane convicts should undergo proper medical treatment. Meanwhile, the state can adopt "guilty, but mentally ill" statutes and retain insane individuals after their medical treatment.

Question 4

Why should there be any statutes of limitation in the criminal law? Should persons who commit crimes always face eventual possible prosecution for their acts?

Question 5

Are the guarantees of due process for people accused of crimes reasonable? Do they make it more difficult to deal with the crime problem? Why are they so important to protect?