The effect of Fault on Criminal Responsibility – An Analytical Study of the Anglo-Saxon Legal System
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Abstract
This study deals with an important topic, which is repeatedly addressed at the criminal jurisprudence level; it is whether to consider the effect of fault a real fault or to consider it under criminal legal liability. A fault may have an impact in case it is real, however, the Arab jurisprudence does not give the possibility for a real fault to have any impact especially if it relates to a criminal legal text. This is what the current study is proposing through resorting to the Anglo-Saxon system, which includes some exceptions in this matter. Accordingly, this study is developed and aimed to invite the Arab jurisprudence to reconsider the absolute rule, which prohibits the endorsement of a legal fault as a justification for the absence of criminal liability. In order to achieve this goal, the study adopted an analytical approach to case law and jurisprudence in the United States of America on this subject. This study concluded that there are some ideas in the American system that cannot be adopted in the Arab legislative systems, while others that can be adopted and reformulated.
Metrics
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Real faultLegal faultCriminal ResponsibilityExemplary criminal lawMoral element
Alexander, L. The Philosophy of Criminal Law, in Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law (J. Coleman & S. Shapiro eds.). New York: Oxford University Press. (2002).
Aristotle, The Complete Works of Aristotle 1791 (Jonathan Barnes ed., 1984).
Austin, J. S. R. Lectures on Jurisprudence 497 (4th ed. 1879).
Buell, S. Novel Criminal Fraud, NYU L. Rev., 81, 1971, (2006).
Cass, Ronald A. Ignorance of the Law: A Maxim Reexamined, 17 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 671 (1976).
Cavallaro, Rosanna. A Big Mistake: Eroding the Defense of Mistake of Fact About Consent in Rape, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 815 (1996).
Chin, Gabriel J. et al. The Mistake of Law Defense and an Unconstitutional Provision of the Model Penal Code, 93 N.C.L. Rev. 139 (2014).
Cowley, David. The Retreat from Morgan, 1982 Crim. L. Rev. 198.
Darley, John M. et al., The Ex Ante Function of the Criminal Law, 35 law & Soc’y Rev. 165 (2001).
Dressler, J. Understanding Criminal Law. (4th ed.). Newark: LexisNexis, (2006).
Duff, R.A. Recklessness and Rape, 3 Liverpool L. Rev. 49 (1981).
Dutile, Fernand N. & Harold F. Moore, Mistake and Impossibility; Arranging a Marriage between Two Difficult Partners, 74 Nw. U. L. Rev. 166 (1979).
Endicott, T. Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford U. Press (2001).
Eser, A. Mental Elements: Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law, in The Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court: A Commentary, v. 1 (Cassese, A., Gaeta, P., & Jones, J., eds.). Oxford University Press (2002).
Faulkner, James. Mens Rea in Rape: Morgan and the Inadequacy of Subjectivism, or Why No Should Not Mean Yes in the Eyes of the Law, 18 MeIb. U. L. Rev. 60 (1991).
Fletcher, George P. Mistake in the Model Penal Code: A False Problem, 19 Rutgers L.J. 649 (1988).
––––. Rethinking Criminal Law §§ 9.1-9.3.3 (1978).
Gur-Arye, Miriam Reliance on a Lawyer’s Mistaken Advice — Should It Be an Excuse from Criminal Liability?, 29 Am. J. Crim. L. 455 (2002).
Hall, Jerome. General Principles of Criminal Law 382-414 (2nd ed. 1960).
Kahan, Dan M. Ignorance of Law Is an Excuse — But Only for the Virtuous, 96 Mich. L. Rev. 127 (1997).
Leonard, G. Rape, Murder, and Formalism: What Happens if We Define Mistake of Law? U. Colo. L. Rev., 72, 507 (2001).
Low, Peter W. & Benjamin Charles Wood, Lambert Revisited, 100 Va. L. Rev. 1603 (2014).
Low, Peter W. The Model Penal Code, the Common Law, and Mistakes of Fact: Recklessness, Negligence, or Strict Liability?, 19 Rutgers L.J. 539 (1988).
Moore, Michael S. Causation and the Excuses, 73 Cal. L. Rev. 1091, 1149 (1985).
Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law 48 (1881).
Parry, John T. Culpability, Mistake, and Official Interpretations of Law, 25 Am. J. Crim. L. 1(1997).
Perkins, Rollin M. & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 291 (3rd ed. 1982).
Perkins, Rollin M. Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law, 88 U. Pa. L. Rev. 35 (1939).
References:
Schumann, H. Criminal Law, in M. Reimann & J. Zekoll, Introduction to German Law (2nd ed.). The Hague: Kluwer Law International (2005).
Simester, A. B. & G. R. Sullivan. Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (3rd ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing (2007).
Simons, K. Does Punishment for ‘Culpable Indifference’ Simply Punish for ‘Bad Character’? Examining the Requisite Connection between Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 6, 219 (2003).
———. Ignorance and Mistake of Criminal Law, Noncriminal Law, and Fact, 9 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 487 (2012).
———. Mistake and Impossibility, Law and Fact, and Culpability: A Speculative Essay, 81 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 447 (1990).
———. Should the Model Penal Code’s Mens Rea Provisions Be Amended? Ohio State J. Crim. L., 1, 179 (2003).
Stuart, D. Canadian Criminal Law (5th ed.). Thomson Canada Limited (2007).
Thomas W. White, Reliance on Apparent Authority as a Defense to Criminal Prosecution, 77 Colum. L. Rev. 775 (1977).
Westen, P. Impossible Attempts: A Speculative Thesis. Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 5, 523 (2008).
Yeager, Daniel. Kahan on Mistakes, 96 Mich. L. Rev.2113 (1998).