Talk:Criminal law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| A summary of this article appears in Law. |
| WikiProject Law | (Rated B-Class, Top-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criminal law article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1 | |||
 Archives |
|---|
| Archive 1 (2002—2008) |
Contents |
[edit] WP Law assessment
Assessed this as B class. Mostly well-written, well sourced and well illustrated. It doesn't flow especially well, which is probably down to editing, but it wouldn't take a lot to lick this into shape for a GA review. It would be nice if we could get all the core subjects to at least GA class (Law already being FA class). --Legis (talk - contribs) 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Complete Revision
I don't want to start the editing process without first asking a few questions and stating a few opinion. Also, it's New Year's Eve and I'm killing time before going out. However, if I start editing I just know that I'll be here five hours from from now when the ball drops since I'm a little OCD.
I'm going to be blunt: this article is seriously flawed and should probably be recreated from scratch. I'm not trying to be mean--honestly--and I don't want to offend people who've undoubtedly spent a good deal of their time in sincere efforts to make the article the best they could create. Still, as a practicing criminal lawyer (and adjunct), I'm intellectually horrified. (I'm sorry. Again, I don't mean to insult.)
For lack of time--I'll definitely be back later--we should start with only three issued that must be addressed in this article. The first is ideological, but will translate into a change in the article structure, which is the second issue. Lastly, I have some suggested readings that are both short in length and are absolutely essential for understanding the subject and therefore contributing to the article.
It's become rather trendy in the past decade of so to put almost anything in pro or anti-American constructs. While much of this is the fault of the current dumbass in the oval office ("you're either with us or against us"), it doesn't hold here. For the most part, criminal law is universal, as opposed to civil law, which varies widely throughout the world. I would challenge anyone to find a society that does not prohibit rape, murder, theft, etc. These crimes fall into the category termed malum en se, meaning that they are bad in and of themselves. I don't know offhand if this categorization dates back to the Romans or it was created later and the Latin is purely for show--lawyers tend to be a pompous bunch.
Regardless of it's history, the malum per se and malum prohibitum--a bad that is prohibited for social order or taste or whatever reason, varying greatly from place to place--distinction is vital to understanding the topic. It needs to be explored in depth and placed at the top of the article where the Hamurrabi section is currently. Personally, I would dump Hamurrabi unless you were planning on greatly expanding the history section. Hamurrabi really isn't that important except for the fact that it was the first legal regime that was "codified" (i.e. memorialized in a systematic form; more simply, organized and written down). It has little influence on modern law as it was property focused as opposed to the people focused legal regime, which was a great advancement of the Jews, given to us by Moses (or God) and codified in the latter books of the Torah. Modern legal regimes are all people focused. (I don't know if there's a term for this category, but anthropologic seems to fit, plus it's in latin).
Come to think of it, the actus reus and mens rea parts should be the first substantive section, after a possible intro, since it's the most fundamental concept of criminal law. Also, rewrite the strict liability section because it has major problems. First, its not an element of a crime; it's a theory of liability, like negligence and recklessness. Second, the definition that you have for strict liability is actually the definition of "proximate causation". Proximate causation and strict liability to have the commonality that they are both imports to criminal law from the law of torts, but they are not at all interchangeable. Third, reus and rea should be translated as "evil", not guilty. The difference is much more than symantic as the term "guilt" carries with it all these notions of liability, or blame, that are inappropriate for discussion of elements. The malum pro se versus malum prohibitum section should follow the elements section and it creates a perfect place to launch into a discussion of comparative criminal law and criminal law jurisprudence (theory), which should be sections three and four, or four and three is probably better.
I've got to go as I'm now supper later (of course!), but think about how you all would like to rework the punishment section. It should break into two subsections only, not the five or so that you have, most of which are in actuality further subsections of "Rehabilitative" and "Retributive". Also, retributive has no connection to utilitarianism. In fact, most retributive systems, often termed "deontological" (meaning a theory or study of moral obligations) systems are directly at odds with utilitarian ideas or criminal law regimes. This "Punishment" section should be fifth, although it's sometimes places first in a criminal law textbook (such an arrangement is mostly stylistic as it can be used for emphasis without causing substantive change to the underlying subject).
Whoever wrote the punishment section doesn't seems to fully understand the topic. I would recommend reading this section in a textbook or a treatise. Also, the Model Penal Code, published by the American Law institute would be helpful. Come to think of it, the best thing to read is probably is a study guide like the "..in a nutshell" or ..."for dummies" series. Law students find these very helpful to review right before the final exam.
I'll come back later and add more or help edit what others write. One last time, I'm trying to be helpful here and truly desire not to hurt anyone's feeling. This is the first time I've try to edit and it's a lot of fun. As a practicing lawyer, you seldom get the chance to step back and look at the big picture, much more of your time is spent arguing the fine points of the law. In realty, the super majority of your time is spent on the facts. It's much more important to know what really happened as opposed to figuring out whether the occurence constitutes a crime.
Happy New Year! And don't drink and drive! Or, to be cynical, do drink and drive, since DUI defense is probably the best paying part of the business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsjames (talk • contribs) 06:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] History of Law
Wow, that is severaly lacking. Surely its not to hard to find more information on how law evolved. I know i know im a lazy bastard for not doing it myself :P 77.250.25.165 (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
