Does Criminal law consistently follow either an ‘objectivist’ or a ‘subjectivist’ approach to liability?

... Does Criminal law consistently follow either an 'objectivist' or a 'subjectivist' approach to liability? How great is the difference between them? In terms of objectivism, a person may be legitimately held liable even if they were not aware of the risks that they were taking, if it may be borne out that a prudent man would have been aware of the risks that could develop. Conversely subjectivism implies that it would be illegitimate to punish people who were not aware of the consequences of their actions, did not know what they were doing or were not in control. For example, a legally insane person should on that basis be excluded from liability, for they he would not have embodied within him a rational mind, capable of choice; and choice is grounded in what the law understands as rationality. It seems that even until as recently as now however, a formula to determine

want to read more? →