How is the criminal law based on the concept of harm? by

Burglary

2024-10-08 13:45:22 UTC

Breaking into someone’s house and they are unaware links to harm because it causes the victim psychiatric injury as a result can create paranoia for one because in their head they will be thinking that there’s alway someone in the house

2024-10-08 13:45:29 UTC

One concept of property offences is theft. This is based on harm as it permanently deprives the other of their property. It is less disruptive to a community but causes serious concern to the victim as their property is stolen meaning they will have to replace it which could be seen as economic harm as they will be loosing out on money.

Actus reus

2024-10-08 13:47:14 UTC

Actus reus is based on harm because the defendant has the guilty act of the defendant meaning that they failed to or did something which caused injury to the victim. For example in R vs Miller the defendant failed to distinguish the cigarette which was alight in his apartment and although he knew of the danger, he proceeded to walk into another room and fall asleep. This shows how actus reus is based on harm as you are failing to do or your doing something which causes harm to another person.

Duress

2024-10-08 13:47:17 UTC

Duress is based on harm because an individual is forced to act recklessly due to a threat of harm towards them or immediate family. A person can only qualify for being under duress if the threat must be one of death or serious personal injury according to the case of R v Graham.

Voluntary man slaughter

2024-10-08 13:48:46 UTC

Voluntary manslaughter is based of the concept of harm as it causes physical harm to the victim, and is a high level of harm as it causes the unaliving of an individual and it is considered to be morally wrong to cause manslaughter and is further based of upon the principle of harm through mens rea as it requires the defendant to have intention to cause the action. Which goes against intrinsic morals and religious fundamental concepts such as the 10 commandments. A case demonstrating voluntary manslaughter would be R v Jewell (2014) where the defendant shot the victim at point blank range but had the charge reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter through loss of control. However voluntary manslaughter is still considered lower in harm morally through the defences used in comparison to murder.

2024-10-08 13:49:23 UTC

Non fatal offences are based on harm because the higher levels of harm caused amounts to a greater punishment.

For example, for GBH s18 where there is intent to cause any grievous bodily harm, you can potentially receive up to life imprisonment whereas for ABH s47 where assault is committed occasioning actual bodily harm, you can receive up to 5-7 years in prison. The differences in sentencing for both offences demonstrates how they are driven by the harm principle as there are higher sentences for the crimes causing more harm.

Involuntary Manslaughter- Gross negligence Manslaughter

2024-10-08 13:49:53 UTC

Gross negligence manslaughter is the failure to act when a defendant owes a duty of care to the deceased, although the defendant did not have the intention to cause harm, harm can still be applied as the defendant breached their duty of care. Harm can be applied through the case of R v Cheshire, as there was a duty of care owed to the patient, which resulted in death, showing the levels of harm as a result of the Patients death.

2024-10-08 13:49:54 UTC

general defences are based on harm because for example self defence should be seen as less harmful due to the fact that the persons intent is to defend themselves rather than cause harm to the individual. You shouldnt be held accountable for defending yourself unless the amount of force used is unecessary.

Actus reus

2024-10-08 13:50:16 UTC

Actus reus is based on harm as it must be proven that the defendant causes the harm through causation. This means that the defendants actions must be linked to the harm caused. The defendant must have factually caused the harm following R v White, this is based on harm as the defendant will be guilty if their actions were the reason that the harm occurred. Furthermore, it must also be proven that the harm was legally caused, meaning that the act was the substantial and operating cause of the act following R v Padgett. This shows legal causation is based on harm as the person whose actions was the main reason for the harm, will be found liable as the harm was a direct result of the defendants actions.

Assault and battery

2024-10-08 13:51:12 UTC

Assault and battery are based on the concept of harm as the defendant may be causing fear or inflicting pain on the victim this could be physical or psychological. For assault, a sentence of 6 months may be given and for battery six months and fine up to £5000 may be given depending on the seriousness of harm and injury caused by the defendant

property offences

2024-10-08 13:51:21 UTC

Property offences such as robbery are based on harm as robbery is a violent crime that involves stealing from a person using force or using fear of force. Robbery can have a harmful impact on an individual as it causes fear of a persons physical safety and well-being. The type of harm the act of robbery can lead to is physical harm, emotional trauma, in addition to instilling fear within a person or community. It can also result in long lasting psychological effects as the loss of personal belongings could possibly result in financial difficulties for the victim. The maximum sentence for robbery is life imprisonment, which reflects the seriousness of the crime.

2024-10-08 13:51:33 UTC

One way that loss of control is based on harm is because the sentence follows the harm principle . This is because it still criminalises acts which cause death to others and allows the community to be free from harm by giving the defendant a discretionary life sentence despite it being due to a loss of control. For example, in cases like R v Martin where defendant feared harm yet was still convicted as they caused harm to others. Therefore this is one way in which voluntary man slaughter is based on harm.

Murder is morally wrong and morally harmful because murder is based on the 10 commandments e.g thou shall not kill meaning as a society we have socially constructed that unlawful killing is wrong. When someone commits a murder there are many downfalls for example their if psychical pain inflicted on the victim and psychological pain inflicted on the family and especially if it’s someone close it will be very hard to overcome.

2024-10-08 13:51:57 UTC

2024-10-08 13:52:03 UTC

Nature law theorists would agree that murder is immoral because we should not kill a person as it violates the fundamental principles of human nature and morality.

Coincidence

2024-10-08 13:52:05 UTC

Coincidence is when both the actual rea and mens rea are present at the same exact time. For example a more recent case is that of Anthony Stocks, who was a 54 year old pedophile that threw a 10 year old boy off a cliff because be tried to stop him from raping is little sister. Anthony was aware of the harm that could be caused for pushing a boy of a cliff and he still committed the act. Eventhough it was foreseeable Anthony followed through with it and acquired the mens rea because his intention to hurt the boy derived from the fact that he couldn't rape his sister. Anthony attained both mens rea and actus rea because he intended to cause harm to the boy while throwing him off a cliff and causing GBH (s18).

Men's Rea

2024-10-08 13:52:15 UTC

The concept of men's Rea is based on principles of harm. Harm is referred to as 'a conduct that causes material harm ' and because the defendant intended to act on that conduct it shows the defendant meant to cause the harm (physical , psychological, financial etc) . As shown in case of Brown and others that they intended to cause each their harm (physical) for sexual reasons However they consented to it which is why it shouldn't be the laws part to interfere . As this is stated in the principle of harm that it should only be illegal when the harm is caused to others and oneself or when there's consent .

2024-10-08 13:52:20 UTC

One way murder is based on the concept of harm is because it has the highest level of seriousness done to another person. This links to harm as it causes a person to lose their life as result of their actions.

Involuntary manslaughter - unlawful act man’s laughter

2024-10-08 13:53:01 UTC

UAM is based on the principle that the D must commit a dangerous criminal act, which poses a risk of harm to others. The act must be unlawful, such as assault or arson, and must objectively pose a risk of some physical harm, even if minor. The harm need not be serious, but it must be foreseeable to a reasonable person. The defendant does not need to intend or foresee the death, only the UAM occurs when a D commits an intentional unlawful act that is both dangerous and likely to cause physical harm (GBH). The unlawful act must be a criminal offense, and it must be objectively dangerous—meaning a reasonable person would foresee that it poses risk of some physical harm, though it doesn't need to be serious/fatal. The D doesn’t need to intend harm or death, but if death results from the unlawful act, they are guilty of manslaughter. A key case illustrating this is R v Jm and Sm. The D’S started a fight with doormen at a nightclub, one collapsed and died though the D’s didn't intend/foresee this.