Variation[ edit ] Societies have varied in their attitudes and cultural standards regarding public intoxicationhistorically based on the relationship between religion and drugs in general, and religion and alcohol in particular. In some instances, consumption of a mind-altering substance has formed the basis of religious or other socially approved ceremonies and festivals. In others, intoxication has been stigmatized as a sign of human weakness, of immoralityor as a sin. Secular approaches may also vary, having less inherent opposition to drugs but acknowledging that these may affect the inhibitions that help to keep socialized individuals from breaking prevailing social taboos which may or may not have been expressly criminalized.
Include in your answer a consideration of any proposals for reform of one of your chosen defences. Suggest what reforms may be desirable to one of the defences that you have evaluated.
Criticisms remain with the law on Insanity and intoxication. As well as this, the Butler Committee which informed the Draft Criminal Code also proposed some desirable reforms to improving the law on insanity.
The first criticism with the law on insanity is that the label insanity itself is stigmatising. Moreover, this same scoping paper proposed that there are only around 30 pleas of insanity a year in the crown courts, yet a large proportion of prisoners still have mental health problems.
It seems wholly unfair to prevent people deservedly using the defence because of the stigma that the defence drags along with it, and it even in a sense prevents justice for those truly suffering. It also seems unfair that in English law, a defendant has to prove this.
Article 6 of the European convention on Human Rights states that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty so prima facie this could be seen as a breach.
Reform of issue 1: Also, another proposed reform was that there should be new defence without an insulting verdict in the IA paper: It also proposes a new special verdict that is not insulting and outdated like the one deriving from the trial of lunatic that could perhaps prevent people seriously suffering from having to plead guilty.
Additionally The burden of proof would now lie with the party raising the issue on balance of probability. A second criticism of the law on insanity is that it is in need of modernisation.
However the problem here is that medicine and psychiatry have moved on much, since then. Its archaic language from a bygone era indicates that justice in some cases may not be served.
This could eradicate the terms that are outdated and not medical. This could potentially prevent juries from being confused as to what should amount to a defendant being classified as insane, and thus it calls a more rigid and correct diagnosis.
All in all, one could even suggest that a new act could be drawn up which eradicates the un-modern anomalies. A third criticism of the law on insanity is that if the issue of automatism is raised, the question has to be asked whether this was insane or non-insane automatism.
This boils down to whether the cause of the automatism was external, e. The distinction is hugely important in terms of the outcome; freedom if external, possible detention for life if internal. This anomaly can lead to two people with the same condition being treated profoundly differently, depending simply on whether they took their medication.
R v Quick, R v Hennessy. Fear of this can also induce the prosecution to push for a not guilty verdict and the defendant to plead guilty, further perpetuating injustice in terms of the defence.
One proposed reform that could help the above issue according to Criminal Liability: The main difference between the insanity and automatism would be that for insanity, incapacity must arise from a qualifying recognised medical condition.
This prevents conditions like diabetes resulting in unfair and bogus sentences. An external factor can be removed and the defendant is no longer a risk to society. Intoxication Introduction There also remains an issue with the law on intoxication.
R v Cunningham tells us that a defendant is reckless if he foresaw a risk of the actual consequence and proceeded anyway. However at the time of getting intoxicated the defendant has no idea that he will actually commit an offence. In this respect, this issue of recklessness seems rather restricted and unfair.
Issue 2 - contemporainety Issue 2 Secondly, the law on intoxication has issues with the concept of contemporainety which states that the mens rea and actus reus must coincide at some point. If you consider a defendant like Majewski, it could be argued that his recklessness in getting so intoxicated happened as much as a day before the actus reus of his crimes.
The Court of Appeal had felt he should have been acquitted as, without the drugs, he would never have formed the intent. Posted by ellecalam at.Strict Liability in Criminal Law Essay - It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use.
While public intoxication itself is only a misdemeanor crime of up to a $ fine, when combined with other charges it can significantly increase the penalties. Knowing public intoxication laws can help prevent a criminal conviction from being harsher than it needs to be. Study 60 Criminal Law Essay flashcards from Garrett S.
on StudyBlue. Study 60 Criminal Law Essay flashcards from Garrett S.
on StudyBlue. What is the Issue Checklist for Criminal Law? 1) Principles of Criminal Law. 2) Accomplice Liability. 3) Inchoate Offenses. Define Voluntary Intoxication. 1) knowingly consumes intoxicating substance.
Consequently, voluntary intoxication is not a defence in the law but it can become a mitigating factor and be considered as a “partial excuse” reducing the echelon of criminal liability.
This area has caused serious problems in English criminal law, as it is fraught with ambiguity and uncertainty. Spolin Law Civil Rights and Criminal Law Essay Competition & $1, Scholarship.
Spolin Law represents people whose civil rights have been violated and individuals facing criminal charges, whether they have been wrongfully accused of a crime or are simply seeking a fair outcome. Define public defence – section 3 Criminal Law Act – defence for a person who uses force reasonable in the circumstances to Intoxication and self-defence, including mistaken self-defence – O’Grady Pre-emptive strikes – Deana.