Is the Law Fault Based?

A2 AQA LAW Is the right pause based? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, find dent is defined as error or convict, the impairmentdoing and extent of which the suspect is responsible for his exemplifyionions. The law should just retaliate those who be at erroneousness and oblige punishments which atomic number 18 deserved, whilst being to a greater extent flaccid to those who argon non at fault and did non foresee the consequences. In criminal law, fault is proven by the criminal prosecution where mess are frame delinquent, beyond reasonable doubt. In gracious law, nation are be liable, on a balance of probability.In narrate to discuss and rate the definition of fault as a basis of wickedness, it must first be understood and identified where fault ignore exist. Offences in law are a great deal graded accordingly depending on how a great deal fault they reflect. E. g. indictable disrespects such as rape and murder are the near unplayful of crim es and therefore receive the authorization life sentence in order to reflect this. They shake the most dependable damage to the dupe and require more design. However, summary offences such as reciprocal assault entirely receive marginal prison sentences, barely norm everyy fines up to ? 000. This is be author the fault is deemed far less as the victim does non suffer as much and there is less absorbedion to commit such a crime. Sentences also reflect to what extent the suspect was at fault. Aggravated f scrapors, homogeneous a racially motivated attack or apply a weapon bodes a high(prenominal) aim of intention and fault whilst mitigating factors like pleading guilty somewhat lessens the defendants fault in the eyes of the law. The severity of the crime depends on the level of fault. This give the axe be found in the actus reus of a crime- the guilty physical act.Murder, for example is a intended act which demonstrates a higher arcdegree of fault and blame ( smith - where a solider stabbed opposite solider with a bayonet. ) A voluntary act is normally a deliberate act and therefore searchs fair to greater level of blame. An omission is defined as the affliction to act and shows a degrade total of fault as there is no physical act. For example, in the cutting of R v Dytham, a policeman witnessed a fight take place, exactly did not stop it and the victim was wickedly injured. An characterless passerby would not be regarded as at fault in this personal manner alone because a police officeholder has a human beings duty, he was deemed at greater fault.Causation is another aspect which is in truth fault-based in some(prenominal) criminal and civil law. There are tests to prove author factual, the but for test- But for defendants actions, would the outcome static be the corresponding? lawful causation- was the defendants actions the un headwayable and operating cause in victims injuries? and novus actus intervenes- was there a o utrage in causation? Was there other factors that could of contributed? So if the defendant did cause the daub suffered by the victim thence the defendant should be held at fault, vise versa if the defendant did not cause the injury then he is not at fault.In Jordan, the defendant had shot the victim however the victim was completely recovered in infirmary when he received a wrong injection which killed him. The defendant did not cause the expiry of the victim as the hospital treatment was an intervening factor and the substantial cause of death, therefore not fault. In comparison, in R v Smith, a solider was stabbed and was in hospital when he died from press release of blood from the stab breach. Unlike Jordan, Smith was found guilty of causing the defendants death as it was the original stab wound which was the operating cause of death proving he was at fault.Fault can also be shown through mens rea- the guilty mind. There are specific intent crimes such as murder or GBH s. 18, which can only be committed intentionally, where it was the defendants main aim or get indicating a higher level of fault. On the other hand, crimes of a less expert nature can be committed either intentionally or recklessly- introductory intent crimes like assault or battery. Recklessness shows less fault and blame than intention (although some fault is given over due to subjective recklessness e. g.Cunningham- the defendant realises there is a risk of deadening but acts anyway) because the outcome is only a possibility and sometimes is not foreseen. Similarly, take in negligence manslaughter depicts how civil negligence can require criminal obligation as a result of a death. This offence allows businesses to be liable and found at fault even though it is unachievable to prove their mens rea. The use of defences in the legal system can also indicate how the defendant may possess both the actus reus and mens rea of a crime, but still not completely at fault.Insanity is a profuse defence which means the defendant is unavailing to form the mens rea of the crime in question due to a disease of the mind. Also, Automatism removes all fault on the defendants behalf as he is suffering from an external factor or influence. Intoxication (only applicable to specific intent crimes) shows an appropriate mens rea could not be make due to the use of drink or drugs. However, other defences such as low responsibility used as a defence in murder situations, only partially removes the defendants fault as he is suffering with an abnormality of the mind.This shows fault is lower than that of an intentional killing. Certain areas of criminal law where there are offences do not require any fault to be prove such as velocity offences. These are called strict liability crimes, where no mens rea is needed just the pure act of doing it makes you guilty whether you intended to or not. These offences are trimd throughout society in order to uphold social policies, but some people feel that no fault offences are unfair because they impose liability on people who did not necessary foresee any consequences. In Shah v DPP, a lottery rag was sold to a member of the public under the age of 16.Although there were legion(predicate) signs and notices about checking ID of those looking underage, the ticket was still sold and the defendant was found guilty. This case had led to a requirement for an paygrade of the need for fault, as Shah, could be seen as not at fault as the child had used fake identity. These no-fault arguments are based on the publics interest that it is better to protect the unsophisticated public and compensate them than to prove an individuals fault, applicable for businesses that have to accept the risks and benefits of funning a company.Smedleys v Breed, a manufacturer defendant who was found guilty when a caterpillar was found in a tin of peas, where it is taken for granted(predicate) that it was this manufacturers fault and r esponsibility to take blame. On the other hand, this can abet higher standards amongst employers to encourage them to know the law and quash injury and take care of themselves. It is believed that we should be accountable for our own actions, no outlet whether fault can be proved or not- based on the precept we reap what we sow.This is was shown in R v Howells where the defendant failed to obtain a certificate for the gun he was possessing unwittingly, but will still guilty of this offence. another(prenominal) argument is that imposing strict liability crimes helps that of deterrence on society to encourage better diligence. However, despite these no-fault arguments, many people believe there is a requisite for a proof of fault. Fairness is at the heart of the legal system and would seem unfair not to require a person to be proven at fault in order for them to be guilty.Having a no-fault system was implicate distrustfulness for the public and would reflect poor set of society. It would also result in serious consequences for the sentenced defendant with a conviction. In conclusion, it has become clear that proving fault is already an all-important(a) element of criminal liability in the English legal system already and no fault only exists in a small number of offences, but can still have serious repercussions. In order for justice to proceed to be served, criminal offences and their combined penalization should be limited to those who are plain guilty and at fault and who actually deserve the punishments.