Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
35 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is the first responsibility of the state? |
Security - that is, to protect its citizens from violence as well as protecting the state from external threats. |
|
|
What percentage of homicides involve persons known to each other? |
80% |
|
|
What percentage do homicides make up of cases presented in court? |
0.02% |
|
|
What are the social realities of violence? |
- 1/3 abuse reported - 1/4 sexual abuse reported |
|
|
What is assault? |
- Inflicting unlawful physical contact on another person (battery) -Causing another person to fear imminent/immediate unlawful contact (violence) |
|
|
What is the case of Zanker V Vartzokas? |
- Female victim accepted lift with accused who offered her money for sex and she declined / asked him to stop the car so she could get out. Instead, he accelerated and said "Im going to take you to a mates place and he is really going to fix you up", she jumped out of the car and sustained physical injury. Driver was charged with her assault. High court argued it needed to be looked at in a contextual way (example of legal false imprisonment) |
|
|
What are other examples where the threat can be continuing and refer to the future? |
Stalking, phone threats and online threats which must be taken in context |
|
|
In what ways are criminal defences highly gendered in nature? |
- Reflect and accommodate experiences of men - Manifests in legal categories - Evident in recasting and challenging of provocation and self defence by courts |
|
|
What is provocation? |
A partial defence to murder, which usually results in manslaughter where the killing was an immediate response to provocation and the offender suffered a sudden loss of control |
|
|
What is the case of R V R? |
- SA case where a woman was accused of killing her husband she had been with for over 27 years. Long history of sexual and physical violence to her and daughters. Threatened to leave but instead waited for husband to fall asleep and murdered him with axe. Argued provocation but was dismissed because their was no immediacy, however on appeal the jury acquitted her outright. |
|
|
What are the obstacles to arguing self-defence when there is no immediate danger? |
- Why didnt she leave - Why didnt she call the police - What was different about this occassion that made it necessary to kill |
|
|
Which offences in the 'offences against public order' section of the criminal code reflect early notions of public order? |
- Treason - Sedition - Riot - All carried seriously penalties such as execution and torture |
|
|
What was public order originally concerned with? |
Protecting political order against its enemies |
|
|
What are public order offences more concerned with these days? |
- Low crimes which mostly include minor, marginal offences such as drunk and disorderly, offensive behaviour/language, public obstruction, indecent behaviour etc. Focus is on protecting order on the streets on a daily basis |
|
|
What is the policed society? |
- breadth of police role and mandate - police being a visible presence in society - Metropolitan police 1929 - Whole array of functions aside from crime |
|
|
How did industrialisation and urbanisation change public order offences? |
- radically transformed patterns of social control with migration of people from smaller, rural communities to urban communities - growing concentration of people in cities generated new forms of industrial conflict (people were rioting and protesting industrialisation) |
|
|
What is a breach of peace? |
- whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence to his property or a person in his fear of being so harmed through assault, affray, riot, or other disturbance |
|
|
What are statutory offences? |
- Vagrancy (make visible poverty a criminal offence) - Status offences (criminalising people for who they are not what they did) |
|
|
What are modern public order offences concerned with ? |
- Peoples actions. |
|
|
Who can be arrested under the summary offences act (2005) s6 public nuisance? |
A person who behaves in: - A disorderly way - Offensive way - Threatening way - Violent way -Interfere with peaceful passage |
|
|
What is the difference between bridge of peace and public order offences? |
Public order doesnt require a victim it just has to be behaviour which interferes with peaceful passage. Also doesnt require proof of harm or intent |
|
|
Why does the fate of in the individual lie within police discretion for public order offences? |
Most people plead guilty |
|
|
How many more times likely are indigenous peopel to be held in police custody? |
17 (35% for public nuisance) |
|
|
What are the consequences of public order offences? |
- Escalation (the trifecta): Minor offence to escalate to a more serious offence. - Flow on effects: Issues that follow offence (such as non payment of fine) - Deaths in custody - Question of legitimacy |
|
|
What was the Ford Pinto case? |
- First occasion in the US where a corporation had been prosecuted for a serious criminal offence - reckless homicide. - Manufactured in 1971-1980, between this time 500-900 deaths occured as a result of fault including three girls in 1978. |
|
|
What are the difficulties in attributing corporate criminal responsibility? |
- Can corporations commit an act? - Do they have a subjective mind? - Should we punish unintended consequences? - collateral and spill over effects - Do financial penalties equate to damage caused? |
|
|
What is another alternative and an example? |
- Seeking civil remedies - For example, Grimshaw V Ford, a 13-boy who received 90% burns to his body and sued Ford to be awarded 6.6 million dollars |
|
|
Why is crime on the streets policed more than in the suites? |
- Frequency? - Seriousness (asbestos) - Context |
|
|
What is regulatory capture? |
Tendency for regulators to be captured by those they set out to regulate (businesses can exert power and influence over regulators in ways that poor, marginalised citizens can not). |
|
|
What are strict liability offences? |
- Offences that are created by a statute and only require proof of act or omission, there is no need to prove fault. They prohibit and punish the context regardless of the intention or recklessness. - Not criminal in any sense as you can not prove intention |
|
|
What are the consequences that flow from the idea strict liability offences are not criminal? |
- Removal or mitigation of punishment - Reduction or removal of a moral stigma |
|
|
What is the regulatory enforcement philosophy for these offences? |
- Less involved with police and more specialist agencies such as health and safety inspectorates, corporate regulators, public health investigators etc. - Much greater emphasis on negotiation, persuasion and securing compliance over deterrence - Prosecution as last resort (administrative meausres / penalties instead) |
|
|
What is identification theory of corporate responsibility? |
- Corporate responsibility has to rest on individual responsibility within the company - Somebody who personifies the company |
|
|
What is aggregation theory? |
- We should not just look at the conduct of the individual but aggregate the conduct of various members of the corporation to prove corporate liability. |
|
|
Corporate culture theory: |
Look at the policies of the organisation, its strategies and overall ethos, not just the individual |
