Criminal Liability and Criminal Responsibility
It is factual that in the field of criminal responsibility, a crime is defined by different elements that are used as a reference to determine the culpability of a suspect (Finnin, 2011). Citing from the criminal liability under the common design, there are two major liabilities that proof a criminal act. They include; the omission or the guilt act (colloquially identified as “actus reus”), and the culpable mind or the prohibited mental state (known as “mens rea”) (Finnin, 2011). Precisely, Mens Rea demands for perceptible evidence that proofs an intention on the part of the offender in a certain criminal act. It is worthwhile to state that most of the criminal offenses, though not all, demand for the coexistence of the two elements at the same time. On the other hand, citing from criminal liability as an aider and abettor, there are several elements that are used to proof the culpability of the suspect. These elements include direct commission of an offense, induction or aid in a crime, perceptible intention, and action before the end of the crime (Finnin, 2011). These elements are intended to prove that the defendant was involved in a crime offense intentionally and deliberately with or without physical presence in the crime scene. Therefore, this shows that if an individual actively participated in a crime venture with a clear intent of the act, then he or she can be held culpable for the offense committed. In this case, it is noteworthy that the government may not need to have precise evidence on which defendant actually committed the crime and the defendant that acted as an aider and abettor (Finnin, 2011).
In most of the states, children at the age of seven (7) are regarded as incapable of criminal intent be it diminished or full criminal intent. In different states, the ages for capability in criminal intent range from eight (8) to ten (10) years of age. For the children within the specified age of crime capability up to the age of 18 years, they are judged in a juvenile jurisdiction system. However, in certain cases, juvenile court cases can be transferred to the adult criminal justice system in the process called Judicial Waiver following some considerations. For different states, there is a certain level of flexibility granted to the juvenile courts with regard to transferring their cases out of their juvenile system. Therefore, the major difference between imposing criminal liability upon a child under age seven (7) and child of 14 years is that in most states, 7 years old child cannot be subjected to criminal liability whereas a 14 years old can be culpable in both juvenile and adult criminal justice system for most of the states.
Citing from Adam Foss ideas, it is factual that there is another option that prosecutors ought to consider apart from sending the offenders to jail (Foss, 2016). This is contended on the grounds that defendants come to courts for help but it appears that the prosecutors do not give them any help. As a matter of fact, these prosecutors amplify the problem when they send crime offenders to jail. Therefore, Adam Foss infers that jurors ought to recognize that the contemporary justice system requires reforms as it appears to shift to the people of color and the poor (Foss, 2016). The most interesting part of Adam’s idea is that he has a good example of how the other option he proposes can work in changing the life of a criminal. He uses the example of Christopher who is now a successful man who could have been a criminal if sent to jail (Foss, 2016). Thus, I can assert that though the strategy cannot work for all the criminals, it is worthwhile for the prosecutors to consider other options prior to making a decision of sending an offender to jail.
References
Finnin, S. (2011). Elements of accessorial modes of liability: Article 25(3)(b) & (c) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Foss, A. (2016). A prosecutor’s vision for a better justice system. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_foss_a_prosecutor_s_vision_for_a_better_justice_system
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2012). Criminal law. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
