In a typical court, determinations of criminal liability require a voluntary act and intent to commit a criminal act. Legal theory refers to this as Actus Rea and Mens Rea, and liability as the state of being responsible for something. The legal requirement rests on Mens Rea to determine culpability and the actor’s mental state. A general example of this in criminal law is how liability or no liability in a murder case rests on the actor causing the death intentionally. The goal of this paper is to survey the legal requirements of liability, present opposing arguments, and present theories to enhance the accuracy of legal proceedings when determining fault and liability in legal. Did the actor cause harm? When is one act considered the cause
…show more content…
At first glance, most would presume that firing a loaded weapon into a crowd of people would show a strong causational link to victims who suffered gunshot wounds or even mortal wounds. However, if we take the same example and add more detail, perhaps the actor with the gun is a policeman or a homeowner, and the crowd of people are a group of looters or violently parading down the street or into your home. If some of the crowd members suffer damages from bullet wounds, even losing their life, can we say definitively that it was the actions of the man with the gun that led to the …show more content…
In law, cause in fact, refers to the notion that for an act becomes a necessary condition for any succeeding occurrences to have occurred. However, in the simple example that I have suggested, it is plausible to argue that if the homeowner had never fired his weapon, there would be no loss of life or grave wounds experienced by the crowd. On the other hand, if the crowd had not become violent or attempted to enter the property, they may not have been present to receive any wounds or instigate the homeowner. This leads to my following point and problem with the concepts of strict liability and negligence.
Schopenhauer observed that the cause of some effect is not a single prior object or changed condition but rather a set of conditions, each of which is necessary for the set to be sufficient for the change in a different condition that constitutes the effect. While we often designate as the cause the last change to occur that completes the sufficient set, scientifically and philosophically, the cause is the entire set. (Chi.-Kent L. Rev.
At first glance, most would presume that firing a loaded weapon into a crowd of people would show a strong causational link to victims who suffered gunshot wounds or even mortal wounds. However, if we take the same example and add more detail, perhaps the actor with the gun is a policeman or a homeowner, and the crowd of people are a group of looters or violently parading down the street or into your home. If some of the crowd members suffer damages from bullet wounds, even losing their life, can we say definitively that it was the actions of the man with the gun that led to the …show more content…
In law, cause in fact, refers to the notion that for an act becomes a necessary condition for any succeeding occurrences to have occurred. However, in the simple example that I have suggested, it is plausible to argue that if the homeowner had never fired his weapon, there would be no loss of life or grave wounds experienced by the crowd. On the other hand, if the crowd had not become violent or attempted to enter the property, they may not have been present to receive any wounds or instigate the homeowner. This leads to my following point and problem with the concepts of strict liability and negligence.
Schopenhauer observed that the cause of some effect is not a single prior object or changed condition but rather a set of conditions, each of which is necessary for the set to be sufficient for the change in a different condition that constitutes the effect. While we often designate as the cause the last change to occur that completes the sufficient set, scientifically and philosophically, the cause is the entire set. (Chi.-Kent L. Rev.