How criminal and civil cases differ in procedures and outcomes. High-level crime requires more time and resources from the judiciary. However, lower-level crimes are committed much more frequently than higher-level crimes. Overall, therefore, all levels of crime place considerable pressure on the resources of the criminal justice system. Early civilizations generally did not distinguish between civil and criminal law. The first written legal texts were written by the Sumerians. Around 2100-2050 BC, your-Nammu, the Neo-Sumerian king of your, issued a written law whose text was discovered: the Code of your-Nammu,[1] although an earlier codex of Urukagina of Lagash (2380-2360 BC) is also known. Another important ancient codice was the Code of Hammurabi, which formed the core of Babylonian law. [2] Only fragments of the first penal laws of ancient Greece have survived, for example: those of Solon and Draco. [3] Criminal law generally prohibits undesirable acts.
Therefore, proof of a criminal offence requires proof of an act. Scientists call this the requirement of an actus reus or a culpable act. Some offences – particularly modern administrative offences – do not require more and are referred to as strict liability offences (e.g. driving a vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit is a strict liability offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988). Nevertheless, because of the potentially serious consequences of a criminal conviction, common law judges have also looked for evidence of intent to do something wrong, mens rea or guilty mind. With regard to crimes for which actus reus and mens rea are required, the judges concluded that the evidence must be present at exactly the same time and that it is not sufficient that it took place one after the other at different times. [9] Criminal law is the universal law relating to crime. It prescribes conduct that is perceived to be threatening, harmful, or otherwise dangerous to the property, health, safety and moral well-being of persons, including themselves. Most criminal laws are established by law, which means that laws are enacted by a legislature.
Criminal law provides for the punishment and rehabilitation of persons who violate these laws. Crimes can be classified in several ways. Crimes can also be grouped by theme. For example, a crime such as assault, assault, or rape tends to injure another person`s body, so it can be classified as a “crime against the person.” If a crime tends to injure a person by depriving them of property or damaging them, it can be classified as a “crime against property”. These classifications are primarily for convenience and are not mandatory for the study of criminal law. A person commits a crime when he acts in a way that fulfills all the elements of a crime. The law defining the offence also sets out the constituent elements of the offence. In general, each offence has three elements: first, the act or conduct (“actus reus”); second, the mental state of the individual at the time of action (“mens rea”); and third, causality between action and effect (usually either “immediate causality” or “but for causality”). In the case of law enforcement, the government has the burden of proof to establish all the elements of a crime beyond a doubt. Property is often protected by criminal law. Trespassing is an illegal entry into someone else`s property.
Many penal codes provide penalties for conversion, embezzlement, theft, all of which involve loss of value of property. Robbery is theft by force. Fraud in the UK is a breach of the Fraud Act 2006 through misrepresentation, failure to disclose information or abuse of position. Accomplice liability allows the court to hold a person criminally responsible for the actions of another person. When a person aids, assists or abets another person to commit a crime, they are called an “accomplice” to the crime. The person who actually commits the act is called the “principal”. The crime for which an accomplice provides assistance is called a targeted crime. If actus reus is a matter of inaction, there must be a duty of care. An obligation may arise by contract[10], voluntary commitment[11], consanguinity[12] and sometimes by official position. [13] Duty may also arise from the creation of a dangerous situation. [14] On the other hand, it has been found in Great Britain that cutting off the life support of a person in a persistent vegetative state is a failure to act and not a criminal one. Since deprivation of power is not wilful, not gross negligence and is in the best interests of the patient, no crime takes place.
[15] In this case, it was decided that since a PVS patient could not give or withhold consent to medical treatment, it was up to physicians to decide whether the treatment was in the patient`s best interests. It was reasonable for them to conclude that the treatment was not in the best interests of the patient and should therefore be discontinued if there was no prospect of improvement.