Critical Evaluation Of The Two Decisions

Critical Evaluation Of The Two Decisions

Introduction

The modern definition of recklessness has become of R v. Cunningham (1957) 2 AER 412 in which the definition of "malicious" for purposes of the Offences against the person Act 1861 was held to require a subjective test rather than objective when a man threw the gas mains while tried to steal money to pay the meter. Consequently, the gas escaped into the house next door, and partially suffocated man's mother:

Caldwell, disgruntled former employee of the hotel had been fired by his boss, got very drunk one night in late 1979 and recently decided to set fire to the hotel of your previous employer, intending to damage property. When he set the blaze, however, was ten guests asleep inside the hotel, and although the fire was extinguished quickly, Caldwell was charged not only with arson (to which he pleaded guilty), but with the burden series of arson with intent to endanger human life.

Reprehensible, blameworthy "figure attitude of mind" is very highly variable in the commission of various crimes it is not surprising that it is determined by more than a dozen terms ("maliciously," "intend," "intentionally" "knowingly," "assuming," "careless" etc.) Therefore, the English doctrine prevailing view that "every crime has its own independent wine." Despite the assumption of the possibility of a generalized notion of guilt, the common law "sets a minimum for certain offenses the mental element" (Gross, 2005, Pp. 71).

Traditionally, in modern English criminal law there are three forms of guilt - intentional, recklessness and negligence. Intentional commission of the act is characterized, above all, strong-willed moment, and in some cases to. Targeting of intentional (willful) and voluntary act, to some extent resembles the wording of a form of intentional guilt in the criminal law of the continental system, but not like it. In the English criminal law doctrine generally accepted that the intentional act (regardless of whether it requires a specific legal rule or not) does not require a special proof, since there is a presumption that illegal actions committed by sane and "reasonable person" are always acts of his will. Rebut the presumption the burden lies on the defendant. (Farmer, 2000, Pp. 63).

Interpretation of Recklessness

First of all, in reckless conduct the awareness is of ''risk.” Recklessness can easily slide into other modes of culpability. If the actor believes the consequences to be certain or practically certain” he is acting “knowingly.” Even though there is no desire for the consequences, the belief that they are certain places the conduct into another mode of culpability. Kimel has argued that the view that the actual awareness of risk distinguishes recklessness from negligence is mistaken and that the difference between recklessness and negligence is not to be captured by a single factor such as awareness of risk.” I agree with one of his general conclusions, namely (Gross, 2005), that the concepts of negligence and recklessness intersect in a variety of ways. But they intersect because many situations are complicated; a situation may ...