Шановний користувач!
Якщо Ви рахуєте, що дана робота неякісна, порушує авторські права
або ж є проблеми з її достовірністю
повідомте про це адміністратора

The criminal law of the USA

Контрольна робота

№ K-19929

ВАРІАНТ № 9
ПЛАН РОБОТИ
1. Прочитайте та письмово перекладіть текст.
2. Поставте 10 запитань до тексту.
3. Складіть речення зі словами, які підкреслені в тексті. Вкажіть час та спосіб, підкресліть підмет та присудок. Перекладіть речення .
4. Підберіть статтю на юридичну тему (на рідній мові). Напишіть англійською мовою про що говориться в статті (20 речень). Стаття додається.
5. Напишіть розповідне , питальне (загальне ^спеціальне) та заперечне речення в :
Present Indefinite Tense (Active Voice), (Passive Voice). Past Indefinite Tense (Active Voice), (Passive Voice). Future Indefinite Tense (Active Voice), (Passive Voice). Напишіть переклад речень.
6. Напишіть тeмy “About Myself” та не менше 8 речень англійською мовою чому ви поступили до ОДУВС.
7. Список літератури.
8. Підпис.
The criminal law of the USA
The criminal law of the USA knows not only general intent, but also specific one. Almost all crimes require at least «general in-tent», which is an awareness of all factors constituting the crime; i.e., defendant must be aware that he is acting in a proscribed way and that any required attendant circumstances exist. The defendant need not be certain that all the circumstances exist; it is sufficient that he is aware of a high likelihood that they will occur. Motive is the reason or explanation for the crime; it is different from intent to commit a crime. Motive is immaterial to substantive criminal law.
A crime may require not only the doing of an act, but also the doing of it with a specific intent or objective. The existence of a specific intent cannot be inferred from the doing of the act. The major specific intent crimes and the intents they require are as follows;
a. Solicitation: Intent to have the person solicited commit the crime.
b. Attempt: Intent to complete the crime.
c. Conspiracy: Intent to have the crime completed.
d. First degree premeditated murder: Premeditation.
e. Assault: Intent to commit a battery.
f. Larceny and robbery: Intent to permanently deprive the other of his interest in the property taken.
g. Burglary: Intent to commit a felony in the dwelling
h. Forgery: Intent to defraud.
i. False pretences: Intent to defraud.
j. Embezzlement: Intent to defraud.
It should be remembered that attempt is a specific intent crime - even when the crime attempted is not. Thus, although murder does not require a specific intent to kill (e.g., the intent to cause serious bodily injury can be enough), attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill. Without that intent, a defendant is not guilty of attempted murder. The intent necessary for malice crimes (common law murder and arson) sounds like specific intent, but it is not restrictive; it requires only a reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result will occur. Defenses to specific intent crimes (e.g. voluntary intoxication) do not apply to malice crimes.
Transferred intent - a doctrine in criminal law that provides that a defendant intends harm to A but harms В instead, the «intent» is said to be «transferred» to the harm befalling the actual victim as far as defendant's liability to В is concerned. This is only a «fiction», or a legal conclusion, created in order to accomplish the desired result in terms of liability (Prosser and Keeton). The doctrine of transferred intent applies to homicide, battery, and arson. It does not apply to attempt. у
A strict liability or public welfare offense is one that does not require awareness of all the factors constituting the crime; i.e. the defendant can be found guilty from the mere fact that he committed the act. In most jurisdictions selling alcoholic beverages to a minor is a strict liability crime. It is not necessary to prove a criminal intent to sell to a minor. Proof that the liquor was sold to the minor is sufficient. Certain defenses, such as mistake of fact, are not available. Most of the statutory offences of statutory liability arise under the regulatory legislation controlling such matters as the sale of food, the conduct of licensed premises and the use of false or misleading trade descriptions. Similarly, many of the offences in statutes regulating road traffic have been held to be of strict liability, as have certain financial provisions.
In most jurisdictions statutory rape is a strict liability offense. Because prison sentences for statutory rape may be quite long, the use of the strict liability approach in this crime is an exception to the rationale that most strict liability crimes incur relatively minor penalties (S.T.Reid).
Strict liability in statutory offences normally results from the courts refusal to read into a statutory provision which does not use a word like «intentionally», «recklessly» or «knowingly» in relation to an element to the actus reus of a particular offence, a requirement that mens rea in relation to it must be proved by the prosecution' (Card, Cross and Jones)
A vicarious liability offense is one in which a person without any personal fault may nevertheless be held liable for the criminal conduct of another (usually an employee). The trend is to limit vicarious liability to regulatory crimes and to limit punishment to fines. Although there are some exceptions, most jurisdictions do not permit imprisonment for various liability.
Thus, there are general elements of criminal liability pursuant to American law. All crimes must involve a criminal act, or a failure to act where there is a legal duty to act. An act should not result in criminal liability unless the requisite mens rea is present.
The Model Penal Code's (MPC's) approach, which is followed widely, is to establish levels of culpability. The highest level of culpability -purposely – exists when the actor consciously desires to cause the result that occurs. The second highest level - knowingly - refers to a practical certainty that a result will occur. Although recklessly, the next level, requires a conscious awareness only that the great risk that harm will result if the act is committed, negligently requires only that the great risk be one that a reasonable person would recognize. In both of these last two levels of culpability, the risk must be a great one, not a slight one. This distinguishes criminal liability from lesser degrees of risk that may establish liability in civil or tort cases' (S.T.Reid).
Despite the general acceptance of a requirement of criminal culpability, there is an exception of cases involving strict liability, vicarious liability.

Ціна

100

грн.

Студенський каталог готових робіт © 2024 - Усі права застережено Адміністрація сайту не несе відповідальності за матеріали, які розміщені користувачами.