Introduction to substantive Criminal law
The elements of substantive criminal law are as follows: the classification of crimes (such as, for
example, felonies and misdemeanours in the United States or crime, délit, and contravention in
continental law);
The principles and doctrines applied to the judgment of crime that qualifies the
provisions of criminal legislation (such as self-defence, necessity, insanity, and so forth); and the
definitions of the types of offenses that are held to be punishable (crimes committed by foreigners,
by nationals abroad, or on ships and aircraft outside the national territory and waters)
Also Read CYBERCRIME AND CYBERSECURITY And Its 3 Types
Legality of Substantive Criminal law
Almost all legal systems across the globe acknowledge the idea of legality as the cornerstone of the
criminal code. It is used in four different senses.
The first is that since there cannot be a crime
without a legal system, immoral or antisocial behaviour that is not prohibited and penalized by the
law is not unlawful. In certain countries with common law, the law may be based on tradition; in the
majority of other nations, however, the only basis of criminal law is a statute (nullum crimen sans
lege, “no crime without a law”).
Second, the legality principle requires that criminal legislation be applied consistently and not by
analogous extension.
When criminal legislation is unclear in its applicability or meaning, it is
frequently given a limited interpretation that is favourable to the accused. This does not imply that
the law must be applied strictly if doing so would violate the statute’s obvious intent.
A clause that
was adopted in several U.S. state statutes is included in the Model Penal Code. In order to be more
consistent with European practice, the code advises that its provisions be interpreted “according to
the reasonable import of their language.”
Third, applying the law in the past is against the legality concept. A law has to be in force when the
conduct was performed in order for someone to be found guilty. Ex post facto clauses in the U.S.
Constitution and international agreements like
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, both of which were established in 1950, embody this part of the idea (entered into force
1976). The Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court also includes it (ICC;
ratified 2002).
Fourth, in order to provide the potential offender with a fair notice before breaking the law, the
Language used in criminal legislation must be as precise and explicit as possible. In certain nations,
Uncertain legislation may even be deemed inapplicable.
Defence against a second trial
Legal systems often have certain prohibitions against charging someone with the same offense more
than once.
The most challenging double jeopardy issues in Anglo-American law center on the
determination of whether the second prosecution is for the “same” or a “different” offense. It is
believed that after an offense has been cleared or convicted, a minor charge that formed part of the
original offense cannot be prosecuted again.
In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932), the U.S. Supreme Court said that the standard to be used to establish whether there are two
crimes or just one is whether one provision demands evidence of a fact that the other does not.
Contrarily, in continental European law, the issue is that the state cannot prosecute a person twice
for the same “material fact” or “historical incident,” and the question of whether the second
prosecution involves the same “material fact” or “historical event” must be answered. Limitations on
actions
There are statutes that limit the amount of time that legal actions may be launched in every system
of law. Depending on how serious the violation was, different time periods may be required.
For instance, in German law, the time frames range from three years for minor offenses to thirty years
for felonies that carry a life sentence.
In continental Europe and the United States, general
legislation that sets deadlines for when criminal cases must be filed is widespread. There is no
universal statute of limitations that applies to criminal cases in England, although legislation that
addresses particular offenses usually has deadlines.
For especially serious crimes, such as capital
felony in the U.S. and genocide and murder in Germany, there are sometimes no statutes of
limitations.
A Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes
Against Humanity was approved by the U.N. General Assembly in 1968. Similarly to this, under the
Rome Statute establishing the ICC, there is no statute of limitations for the prosecution of crimes
such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
Criteria for jurisdiction in Criminal Law
A court’s ability to pursue legitimate legal action is referred to as its jurisdiction. All governments
assert their right to prosecute crimes committed entirely or partially on their soil, including on flag
boats (vessels registered in that nation) and diplomatic missions.
The Hague Convention for the
Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970) and the Tokyo Convention on Offences and
Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (1963) both recognize that states have the right and
even the obligation of jurisdiction with regard to any crime committed on an aircraft registered in
that state.
The majority of nation-states also assert nationality jurisdiction over specific offenses
committed by their citizens, even if they took place elsewhere. Protective-principal jurisdiction is a
third foundation for a jurisdiction that provides.
Components of crime and criminal law
Everyone agrees that (1) a voluntary act or omission (actus reus), along with (2) a specific state of
mind, are necessary components of every crime (men’s rea). Any voluntary human behavior can be
categorized as an act.
Even if they cause the death of another person, movements done during an
epileptic episode or just before waking up by a somnambulist are not considered actions. The injury
must have been brought about by the accused in order for the accused to be held criminally liable
for the outcome.
The incident would not have occurred in the same manner without the offender’s
direct involvement, which serves as the litmus test for the causal link between action and
consequence.
Failure can potentially result in criminal culpability. The statutes haven’t always been clear on what
is meant by the concept of the guilty mind or men’s rea, even though the majority of legal systems
acknowledge its significance.
By limiting the number of mental states to four, the Model Penal Code
aims to make the idea more understandable. A person is considered guilty if they behave
“intentionally,” “knowingly,” carelessly,” or, less frequently, “negligently.”
These phrases broadly
relate to those used in continental European legal theory and Anglo-American courts. They seem to
be mostly enough, either alone or in combination, to address the majority of typical men’s rea
issues.
They explain and rationalize a key component of the substantive law of crimes, and the
majority of U.S. states have accepted them literally or substantively.
This Article is Written by Aditi Mishra Intern at Fastrack Legal Solutions
