Quiz 6: Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes
There are two very important fundamentals which need to be considered before a person can be held responsible for a crime. The two important elements which are considered before any person can actually be held responsible for a crime have been stated below: • The particular act that has been forbidden should have actually taken place. • The intention that is there before the crime has actually been committed and the state of mind of the person who has done the crime. The happening of the above stated elements should have taken place simultaneously, this is important because for the establishment of a criminal liability it is necessary that there is an concurrence between the act and the intention.
Standard proof is referred to as the amount of evidence, which a prosecuting attorney or a plaintiff must present before the trial court for winning the case. The standard of proof in cases of criminal trials is higher in comparison to civil trials because the consequences befalling on an accused facing criminal conviction are more severe. Criminal defendants have to face the deprivation of life or liberty, whereas civil defendants normally face an order of paying damages to the plaintiff. Coercive power of state is considered to have a great potential for abuse and therefore the criminal sanction should only be made in clearest of circumstances.
Case facts: EDH works as a road master in P A of the White Pass and YK railroad. As he is an officer, he is responsible for the safe construction and maintenance of the rail track and the marine facilities of railroad. One project which is near to the Sk River just beneath the surface of it a high pressure pipeline is running. The quarry's backhoe operator punctured the pipeline. Due to this an estimate of 1,000 to 5,000 gallons of oil was discharged into the river. EDH was charged with negligently discharging a harmful quantity of oil into the water of US in violation of the criminal provisions of the clean water act. 1.State of mind: (Mens rea) is wrongful state of mind or intent which is required to establish criminal liability Yes in this case EDH could have been charged for a crime that was committed as a person who has a guilty mental condition can actually be credited for an act of carelessness and irresponsibility. The criminal negligence will indicate a mental condition during which the defendant will be read to bear a risk that would be unforeseeable, it will not be justified and it will even be substantial which could be very harmful for everyone. A defendant is found to be negligent under the Model Penal Code irrespective of whether the person concerned was conscious or not of the risk but it is believed the person should have been alert regarding all the risk. 2.Under the theory of the responsibility corporate officer doctrine, a court may impose criminal liability onto a corporate officer for actions of their employees under the supervision. 3.In this case, the court held that EDH was in the best position to have prevented the incident from occurring, thereby placing the responsibility on EDH. Hence, the operator would not be charged with a crime that resulted from his action. Additionally, most corporations direct responsibility of the supervisors for employee-related incidents on the job. 4.No this defense won't be successful as a person bestowed with monitoring being a road master should be aware of the liability and information about such dangerous activities.