principles- ke

Question 1

Principles- harm- paragraph/ theorist 2

Answer 1

• The meaning of harm is is causing harm to others, as in physical or psychiatric injury or damage to property. However, the meaning of harm can be extended to harm not just caused immediately but also to causing fear of future injury (assault) and can include hate crimes as well. For example, even with consent, the law will not allow you to consent to serious injury as this is not in the public interest. This can be seen in RvBrown where sadomasochistic sexual activity could not be consented to.
• However, Joel Fienberg argues we should only punish actions that cause harm directly to others, not merely those that offence societal sensibilities.

Question 1

Principles- harm- Paragraph/ theorist 1

Answer 1

• The principle of harm is very important in the creation of criminal offences (by parliament or the courts), and in justifying imposing criminal sanctions on those who have been found guilty. In criminal law, usually the most serious offences are the ones which involve harm to the victim.
• John Stuart Mill created the “Harm principle”. This means a person is free to do as they wish, and the law will only intervene if their actions cause harm to others.

Question 2

Principles- harm- paragraph 3

Answer 2

• You can also cause harm to yourself as well as causing harm to others, such as self- harm as in substance abuse, self-inflicted injury, consent to injury inflicted by others, suicide and euthanasia. Not all of these acts are criminal, for example suicide is no longer a criminal offence as the law now recognises that a D who attempts suicide is in more need of help than to be punished for their acts.

Question 3

Principles- harm- paragraph 4

Answer 3

• The law recognises that you can also harm society in general through hate speech, or if you breach moral principles such as “outraging decency” or “corrupting public morals”. For example in RvGibson: D freeze dried foetus’ and made them into earrings for a display and was liable for outraging public decency due to the harm imposed on the public.`

Question 4

Principles- fair labelling- paragraph 1- introduction

Answer 4

• The law should be made so that the elements of the offence are clear. The level of offence should be in proportion to the type of offence. In our system, offences come under three categories- summary, triable either way or indictable. This allows offences to be labelled according to their seriousness.

Question 5

Principles- fair labelling- paragraph 2- theorist 1

Answer 5

• According to Douglas Husak distinctions amongst offence should reflect the nature and seriousness of the offence as mislabelling can lead to unjust consequences

Question 6

Principles- fair labelling- paragraph 3- theorist 2

Answer 6

-Andre Ashworth emphasises that fair labelling is essential for justice and that criminal law should avoid excessive labels that can create unnecessary stigma. For example, a murderer should not be labelled as a serial killer as this is not the appropriate label under the law.

Question 7

Principles- fair labelling- paragraph 4- examples 1/2

Answer 7

• For example, an individual should only be labelled as a “Murderer” if they intended to kill or cause GBH, it would not be fair for if the D kills through negligence or as an act of self defence.
• Additionally, the term rapist, can only be given for male D’s due to the actus reus definitions- this would therefore not be appropriate as a label for a woman.

Question 8

Principles- no retrospective liability- paragraph 1 - introduction

Answer 8

• An individual should not be liable for actions that were not considered a crime at the time they were committed at. It would clearly be unfair to convict the D of a new offence, that was not an offence at the time committed.

Question 9

Principles- no retrospective liability- paragraph 2- theorist 1

Answer 9

• Kant supports this idea, asserting it would violate the principle of justice if the person was to be held liable for actions that were not a crime at the time.

Question 10

Principles- no retrospective liability- paragraph 3- theorist 2

Answer 10

• Bentham further supports this and states hat if a person was to liable based off retrospective liability, then this would undermine legal certainty and could lead to unfair consequences for individuals