Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
'In general, criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but doesn't impose criminal liability for an omission to act' - Assess the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Sat Jan 29 2005
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
'In general, criminal law prohibits the doing of harm but doesn't impose criminal liability for an omission to act' Assess the truth of this statement and the arguments used to justify it (50 Marks) The British legal system convicts or acquits criminals based primarily on two principles - actus reas (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). In order for an unlawful situation to arise, both these conditions must be present. The actus reas of a crime deals with the circumstances and consequence of the crime whilst the mens rea is considering the state of mind of the person committing the crime. A hypothetical situation would be one of D intending to kill X and subsequently carrying this out - D would have both the actus reas and the mens rea and could be trialled. However, what the British system does not generally consider is the act of doing nothing. If, in the...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 147,231 others
Receive email updates for this category
- Simply tell us your email address and receive a weekly Study Help Email for FREE
- Receive 3 FREE essay views with each email
- Get all the latest essays from Coursework.Info & discussion from TheStudentRoom.co.uk
