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

English criminal law

Контрольна робота

№ K-19978

IV сем
Контрольна робота №2
з англійської мови

ВАРІАНТ № 1
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.
Напишіть тему “About Myself “та не менше 8 речень англійською мовою чому ви поступили до ОДУВС.
Список літератури.
8. Підпис.
English criminal law
According to English criminal law, in general where there is no mens rea there is no criminal offence. But responsibility without guilt exists (for example in case of strict and vicarious liability).
It has frequently been affirmed and should unhesitatingly be recognized that it is a cardinal principle of our law that mens rea, an evil intention or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is in all ordinary cases an essential ingredient of guilt of a criminal offence. It follows from this that there will not be guilt of an offence created by statute unless there is mens rea or unless Parliament has by the statute enacted that guilt may be established in cases where there is no mens rea'. (Lord Morris in Sweet v. Parsly (1970).
There are three fundamental blameworthy' states of mind: intention, recklessness and negligence.
Intent - a state of mind wherein the person knows and desires the consequences of one's own act which, for the purpose of criminal liability, must exist at the time the offense is committed. The existence of this state of mind is often impossible to prove directly; consequently, it must be determined from reasonable deductions, such as likelihood that the act in question would result in the consequent injury. Two general classes of «intent» exist in the criminal law: general intent, which must exist in all crimes, and specific intent which is essential to certain crimes and which, as an essential element of the crime, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Assault is a general intent offense requiring only the general mens rea common to any offense; 'assault with intent to. rape' is a specific intent offense requiring in addition to the general mens rea for an assault a specific mens rea consisting of intent to rape the victim' (Gifis).
In general, where the actus reus of the offence with which a person is charged requires that his conduct shall produce particular consequences, his intention that these consequences shall occur is a sufficient mental state for the offence.
An intention is the purpose or design with which an act is done. This may consist of an intention to perform some further act, an intention to bring about certain consequences or perhaps merely an intention to do the act itself (Salmond).
The standard test of intention is: Did the person whose conduct is in issue either intend to produce the result or have no substantial doubt that his conduct would produce it? (Law Commission Report No 89).
Crimes of specific/ulterior intent are those in which the requirement of mens rea is satisfied only by proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person had a special intention of committing the actus reus. In the case of a crime of ulterior intent, however, there must also be proof that the person intended to perform a further prohibited act ulterior to the actus, reus,. Thus., on a charge of burglary, the prosecution must first show that the person entered premises as a trespasser - the actus reus of the offence. It must then be shown that the person had the ulterior motive of intending to steal or cause damage to the premises, etc. Other examples of crimes of specific intent are: stealing, unlawful wounding, murder. Only proof
of intention will be sufficient for a conviction. Proof of negligence or recklessness will not suffice.
A crime of «ulterior intent» is one where the definition of the mens rea requires proof of an intention to bring about a consequence beyond the actual actus reus of the offence. Burglary may be committed where a person enters a building as a trespasser with the intention of stealing, causing grievous bodily harm, raping a woman therein or causing criminal damage. The actus reus is complete as soon as В enters the building as a trespasser, he need not go on to commit one of the further offences. The mens rea required is, firstly, that В knows he is a trespasser or is reckless as to this fact and secondly, that he intends to commit one of the four further offences. This latter element of the mens rea is the «ulterior intent» as it is requirement beyond the actus reus which is satisfied by proof that В has entered as a trespasser. Other offences of «ulterior intent» are, for example, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, wounding with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension of any person and assault with intent to rob.
The term «specific intent» encompasses both crimes of «ulterior intent» and other offences in respect of which В may plead that he lacked mens rea due to his intoxication at the time he committed the actus reus. If an offence is one of «basic intent», В may not plead intoxication. Offences of «basic intent» may be committed recklessly whereas offences which the courts have classified a ones of «specific intent» are either offences of «ulterior intent» offences for which proof of intention alone is required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus, for example, murder (M. J. Allen).
Crimes of basic/general intent. In cases of this type proof of either or both recklessness or intention (but not negligence) will suffice as proof of the necessary mens rea. By «crimes of basic intent» I mean those crimes whose definition expresses (or, more often, implies) a mens rea, which does not go beyond the actus reus". (Lord Simon in DPP v. Morgan (1976).
The classification of crimes of specific «ulterior» intent and crimes of basic/general intent results from the decisions of courts, not from statutes.
A court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw the result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions, but shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appears proper in the circumstances' (The Criminal Justice Act 1967, s.8).
Numerous offences are defined so as to require proof of «intention» to cause specified results. It is sufficient that killing is the accused's object or purpose, that he wants to kill, that he acts in order to kill.
In Moloney [1985] the House of Lords held that the mens rea of murder is intention to cause death or serious bodily harm so it was essential to determine the meaning of «intention». Moloney must be read in the light of the explanation of it by the House in Hancock and Shankland [1986] and by the Court of Appeal in Nedrick [1986]. When it is so read it appears that:
1)A result is intended when it is the actor's purpose.
2)A court or jury may also infer that a result is intended, though i, is not desired, when
(a)the result is a virtually certain consequence of that act, and
(b)the actor knows that it is a virtually certain consequence.
Results known to be conditions of achievement of purpose. It may be said that no one can ever know that a result is certain to follow from an act. This is why courts and writers are driven to speak of «virtually» or «morally» or «almost» certain results. But a person may know that he cannot achieve his purpose, A, without bringing about some other result, B. If he is to bring about A, he knows he must also, at the same time or earlier, bring about B. It may be that, in any other circumstances, he would much rather В did not happen, indeed its occurrence may be abhorrent to him. But the choice being between going without A and having A and B, he decides to have A and B. It seems fair to say that he intends to cause В as well as A. Suppose that P has made a will, leaving the whole of his large estate to D. D loves P but he has an overwhelming desire to enjoy his inheritance immediately. If he gives P what he knows to be a fatal dose of poison, he intends to kill P, though he says truthfully that it causes him anguish. D wishes to injure his enemy, Q, who is standing inside the window of the house of D's friend, P. If, knowing the window to be closed, he throws the stone through it at Q, can it be doubted that he intends to break his friend's window?
Since result A is the actor's purpose, it is immaterial that he is not certain that it will happen. He is not a good shot and he knows the stone may miss - but he intends to strike Q. And, since he knows that, if he strikes Q, it will be because he has broken P's window, he intends to break the window. It seems from these examples that we might safely say that a result known to be a condition of achievement of the actor's purpose is intended

Ціна

100

грн.

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