Judgments in criminal law have a load of principles and reasoning behind them. However, there are some which really leave you to question the adequacy of our legal system.
An overriding issue in class discussion seems to be whether the law uses an objective or subjective test to determine whether an accused is criminally liable.
A recent addition to my knowledge of criminal law is that, to establish manslaughter by criminal negligence, the accused's intellectual capacity is not taken into account when establishing breach of duty of care. The standard is of a person of normal fortitude.
This principle was at play in Stone and Dobinson [1977] QB 354. Stone and Dobinson, both men of below average intelligence, lived with Stone's grown-up sister Fanny and provided her with food. Unfortunately, Fanny appeared to have an eating disorder, but neither men had the aptitude to respond appropriately. Fanny died from the disorder, and the men were held liable for manslaughter.
The fact that the men did not have the intellectual capacity to act as required was irrelevant, because the objective test was to be applied for this offence.
But why? What is the justification of convicting Stone and Dobinson? This isn't civil law, where some sort of compensation is sought for another party. Criminal law operates to punish those who have committed culpable wrongs, or to deter recurrence of the unlawful act. This conviction does neither.
Surely there can be a mechanism by which this issue can be overcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment