Breaking The Law: Criminal Or Not?

Breaking the law is something that few people ever intend to do, but it is possible that every person alive has broken the law at least once. Laws vary by country and state, and some laws are considered more serious than others. For example, in the UK, jaywalking is not a crime, whereas in the US, it is. Other laws that are commonly broken include prank calling, throwing out mail belonging to previous tenants, failure to update your driver's license, copyright infringement, underage drinking, and smoking marijuana. When an individual is convicted of a criminal offense, the three primary punishments are community service, a fine, or imprisonment.

What constitutes a criminal act?

The question of what constitutes a criminal act is a complex one, and the answer can vary depending on the legal system and cultural context in question. That being said, there are some general principles that can help define what constitutes a criminal act.

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between criminal acts and criminal offences. A criminal act, or actus reus, refers to the physical act of breaking the law, while a criminal offence is the legal term for an act that has been deemed illegal by the criminal justice system. Not all criminal acts are criminal offences, as some laws may be outdated or no longer enforced.

For an act to be considered a criminal offence, it must typically involve some form of harm or potential harm to an individual, property, or society as a whole. This can include acts of violence, theft, fraud, or public order offences, among others. The severity of the harm caused or intended will often determine the severity of the criminal offence and the corresponding punishment.

In addition to the act itself, criminal intent, or mens rea, is also a key factor in determining whether an act is a criminal offence. This refers to the mental state of the individual at the time of the act and their awareness that their actions were wrong. In some legal systems, a crime may only be considered a criminal offence if both the actus reus and the mens rea are present. However, this is not always the case, as some offences may be strict liability offences, where guilt is determined solely based on the act itself, regardless of intent.

It is also important to note that what constitutes a criminal act can vary across different jurisdictions and legal systems. An act that is considered criminal in one country or region may not be criminal in another, or the same act may be subject to different punishments in different legal systems.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that the definition of a criminal act can evolve over time as societal values and norms change. Acts that were once considered criminal may no longer be seen as such, and new acts may be criminalised in response to changing social, economic, or political conditions.

Intent vs criminality

The question of whether breaking the law makes one a criminal is a complex one, and the answer depends on several factors. Firstly, it is essential to understand the difference between intent and criminality. While breaking the law may be an unintentional or accidental act, criminality typically implies a level of intent or maliciousness in the action.

Intent vs. Criminality:

The concept of "intent" in criminal law refers to the mental state or subjective intention of an individual when committing a crime. It is often defined as the "resolve or determination" to carry out a criminal act. Intent is a crucial element in determining criminal responsibility and differentiating between criminal acts and innocent actions.

On the other hand, criminality refers to the act of committing a crime or engaging in behaviour that violates the law. This can include a wide range of actions, from minor infractions like jaywalking or littering to more serious offences such as theft or assault.

Types of Intent:

There are several types of intent that are recognised in criminal law:

• General intent refers to the intent presumed from the act of commission, such as speeding.
• Specific intent requires preplanning and predisposition, such as in the case of burglary.
• Constructive intent refers to the unintentional results of an act, like a pedestrian death caused by a negligent driver.
• Direct intent refers to when an individual intends a particular consequence of their action.
• Oblique intent is when an event is a natural consequence of a voluntary act, and the individual foresees it as such.
• Unconditional intent refers to the expected result of an individual's actions.
• Conditional intent is the expected result only when a condition changes the individual's unconditional intent.

The Nexus Between Intent and Criminality:

The relationship between intent and criminality is complex and varies across different legal systems. In some jurisdictions, the presence of intent is a necessary condition for an act to be considered criminal. This is often referred to as the "actus reus" (the criminal act) and "mens rea" (the guilty mind) principle. In these cases, both the act and the intention must be present for an individual to be considered a criminal.

However, there are also "strict liability" offences, where guilt or innocence is determined solely based on the act itself, without considering the intent. These types of offences are typically minor infractions or public welfare offences, such as parking illegally or food adulteration.

Breaking the Law vs. Being a Criminal:

While breaking the law may involve a spectrum of actions, from minor infractions to serious crimes, being labelled as a "criminal" often carries a heavier connotation. The term "criminal" typically implies a pattern of criminal behaviour, malicious intent, or a conviction in a court of law. Simply breaking a law, especially unintentionally or without malicious intent, does not necessarily make one a criminal in the broader sense.

In conclusion, while it is possible that many individuals may have broken a law at some point in their lives, the distinction between intent and criminality is crucial in determining the level of culpability and the appropriate response from the justice system.

Minor vs serious offences

Breaking the law does not necessarily make one a criminal. In the eyes of the law, misdemeanours are less serious than felonies but more serious than minor offences. Minor offences, also called infractions, petty offences, or violations, are the lowest class of offences and the most common. They are generally punished with small fines and do not result in jail time. Common examples include traffic tickets, violations of local ordinances, and public intoxication.

On the other hand, misdemeanours are crimes that carry a maximum sentence of less than a year in jail. Common misdemeanours include possession of a non-narcotic controlled substance, fourth-degree assault, theft, and disorderly conduct. Felonies, meanwhile, are the most serious crimes, including murder, rape, and kidnapping.

The distinction between minor and serious offences is important because it determines the potential punishment and the legal process. Minor offences are typically handled by a judge, while more serious offences may involve a jury trial. Additionally, the intent behind the act may be considered in more serious offences but is often irrelevant in minor offences.

It is worth noting that the specific definitions and consequences of minor and serious offences may vary across different legal systems and jurisdictions.

Criminal punishment

A felony is a major crime that can be punished with imprisonment, a fine, or both. The prison term for a felony can range from zero to five years, one to 15 years, five years to life, or even life without parole or the death penalty. A misdemeanour, on the other hand, is a less serious offence that can be punished with a county jail term of up to 364 days, a fine, or both. An infraction is the least serious type of crime and is usually punishable by a fine, although it can also result in compensatory service or forfeiture.

When determining the appropriate punishment, judges consider a variety of factors, including the type of crime committed, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the need for societal protection. The judge must impose the least severe sentence that achieves the goals of deterrence and retribution. Deterrence aims to prevent future crimes by the convict and others who may contemplate committing the same offence. Retribution, on the other hand, posits that the criminal deserves punishment for their actions.

In the United States, federal sentencing guidelines have been established to ensure consistency in punishment for specific federal crimes. These guidelines take into account the criminal's conduct and previous criminal history. However, judges still have some flexibility in determining the appropriate sentence within the mandatory minimum and maximum sentences set by the guidelines.

The debate surrounding criminal punishment often centres on the issue of intent. Historically, a crime has been understood to require both the act itself (actus reus) and awareness that the act was wrong (mens rea). However, an increasing number of modern criminal statutes have been drafted without regard to intent, leading to concerns about over-criminalisation and the potential for innocent actions to be criminalised.

Criminal justice system

The criminal justice system is a series of government agencies and institutions that work together to maintain the rule of law within society. The system's primary institutions are law enforcement agencies, courts, prosecution and defence lawyers, and agencies for detaining and supervising offenders, such as prisons and probation agencies.

The first contact an accused person has with the criminal justice system is usually with the police, who investigate the suspected wrongdoing and make an arrest. The police are empowered to use force and other forms of legal coercion to effect public and social order. They are primarily concerned with keeping the peace and enforcing criminal law based on their particular mission and jurisdiction.

Once the police have gathered sufficient evidence to support criminal charges against a suspect, the case continues with criminal proceedings via the court system. A judge weighs the evidence in a bench trial, or a jury weighs the evidence in a jury trial. The prosecutor, or district attorney, is a lawyer who brings charges against a person or entity, explains the crime committed, and details the incriminating evidence against the accused. The defence attorney counsels the accused on the legal process, likely outcomes, and suggests strategies. The accused has the right to make final decisions on fundamental points, such as whether to testify or accept a plea offer.

The final determination of guilt or innocence is typically made by a judge, a panel of judges, or a jury panel of unbiased citizens. Some cases can be disposed of without a trial if the accused confesses their guilt, or through plea bargaining, where the accused pleads guilty or no contest in exchange for a reduced punishment.

If the defendant is found guilty, the judge will hand down a prison sentence or other penalty. The corrections system will then enforce this sentence to punish and correct the behaviour of the defendant. Probation, incarceration, fines, community service, and capital punishment are all forms of punishment that may be enforced.

The criminal justice system aims to rehabilitate offenders, prevent other crimes, and provide moral support for victims. However, the system is fraught with problems and subject to criticism, including bias, discrimination, and manipulation by attorneys and defendants.

Frequently asked questions