Lesson 2 Flashcards
private vs public law
private law: between two individuals, where someone may seek damages. A good example are tort cases. Think of defamation
Public law: Governs and regulates matters which concern the general public ie murder. Criminal law falls in this.
Criminal law: deals with conduct considered so harmful to society as a whole that it is prohibited by statue and prosecuted and punished by the government
Three main sources of criminal law
1) constitution
2) statutes ie written laws (skeleton of a law made by federal government). Criminal Code of Canada contains the definitions of most criminal offences
3) common laws (fleshing out of statutes)
note: regulatory offences are kind of abstract offences outlined in the criminal code of Canada which allows for different provinces and municipalities to interpret them differently, ie nuisance activities and food regulation.
moral entrepenuers
. Moral entrepreneurs are individuals, groups, or organizations that seek action against certain groups of people or certain behaviours and bring pressure on legislators to enact criminal statutes
value consensus model: the view that the behaviours are defined as criminal and the punishment imposed on offenders reflects commonly held opinions and limits of tolerance.
conflict model: the view that crime and punishment reflect the power some groups have to influence the formulation and application of criminal law
Types of offences
indectable- serious
summary- not so serious (up to 2 years and/or 5k fine)
summary-up to crown (i’m assuming crown=judge_
actus reus: guilty act- refers to the physical act of the crime itself. there are three components here, conduct, circumstances, and consequences of conduct.
mens rea: guilty mind- refers to the mental state of the accused person at the time.
general intent offences vs specific intent offenses and excuse vs justification defenses
general intent: only need to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offense in question (ie punching someone) but not that he had a specific goal in mind (ie killing someone through a punch).
specific intent: Must prove that defendant had a specific goal when they were doing an act, ie when they break and enter, they intend to commit an unlawful crime in the house.
excuse defences: defendant admits to committing the crime, but says the intent was not there
justification defense: admits to crime, but argues they were justified in doing so given the circumstances.
excuse defenses
mistake of act: you must prove that you did not intend to commit the crime, and that if you were aware of what was going on, you wouldn’t do it. Baking soda and cocaine example.
mistake of law: saying you do not know the law is not a legit defense most of the time, however if there is an officially induced error due to an officials misrepresentation of the law, it can be used as a defense.
mental disorder defense: (previously named the wild beast defense) the defentant must be 1) seriously mentally ill 2) this illness must impact his decision making during the time of the crime and 3) the illness should impact the defendant’s ability to understand their actions were wrong.
Irresistible Impulse Test is a volitional standard of insanity that holds that individuals should not be held legally responsible for behaviours that emerge from mental illness that results in an inability to control their own behaviour
Automatism is a legal excuse that refers to unconscious or involuntary behaviours (ie sleepwalking)
Justification Defenses
Provocation refers to a situation wherein a wrongful act or insult causes the accused individual to completely lose the power of self-control. The act must be done immediately with no cooling off period.
duress: forced to do something. Compulsion is one form of duress in the criminal code which states that 1) serious bodily harm must be threatened 2) the threatener must be present at the time you commit the crime 3) you’re not part of the criminal group who’s intending to commit the crime and 4) the crime isn’t murder or sexual assault. Common law duress does not require points one and two, but fails if you have a reasonable chance to escape.
Necessity: you may use this defense if a) there is imminent danger b) there is no legal alternative and c) the damage is proportional to the good. Ie running through a red light and killing someone because your wife is pregnant will not follow under this, as the damage done was far out weighing the good.
self defence: a) unlawful assault must be committed b) reasonable fear of death and bodily harm must be present and c) you must have believed there was no other way to prevent your death and/or heavy bodily harm
