Talk:Criminal law/Archive 1

mala in se vs. mala prohibita

Someone qualified the discussion in the article about mala in se vs. mala prohibita with:

"Jurisdictions still recognizing common law usually [recognize mala in se vs. mala prohibita distinction]"

What sense of "common law" are they referring to? And what jursidictions used to recognize common law but don't anymore? I can't think of any. -- SJK —(Undated. Added 15:51, 25 February 2002 UTC by Conversion script.)

They are referring to the common law basis of criminal law, as opposed to those jurisdictions that have replaced parts of the common law with statutory provision in various Criminal Codes. Usually the basis of most US criminal law is the common law of England circa 1750 (this is the version of criminal law they teach in most US law schools as most state jurisdictions deviate from this basis only in some respects). Alex756 21:33 16 May 2003 (UTC)

This point might be worth fitting into the article somewhere. To my knowledge criminal offences in both Canada and the US are purely statutory and have been abolished the creation of new common law offences. Common law defences, however, still remain. In contrast, England still has common law offences. Anyone know about Australia or other common law countries? -- PullUpYourSocks 23:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there still are common law crimes in many U.S. jurisdictions - the enactment of statutes does not necessarily abolish the common law rules regarding the subject addressed by the statute. Furthermore, the statutes remain subject to interpretation under the common law, so a burglary statute which codifies part of the common law (requiring a breaking and entry with intent to commit a felony, for example, but doing away with the "in a dwelling at night" part, will still be read under common law rules of what constitutes a breaking and entry. -- BD2412 ^talk 12:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I thought england was one of the few countries still practicing Common Law offences. This, of course, is very different from the practice of common law interpretation of criminal law which is practiced in just about every common law country. In a country such as Canada the criminal code explicitly disallows new judge-made offences, however in practice, they sometimes stetch codified offences to include all sorts of crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PullUpYourSocks (talk • contribs) 23:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In most (all?) common law jurisdictions, it is now outside of the powers of the courts to create new criminal offences. However, some judges have been prepared to twist the statute to such an extent that they might as well come out and say what they're doing. England in particular has doen this.

In most of these jurisdictions common law offences are still on the books. Apparently Canada is an exception to this. I will change the article to reflect this. --Matthew Proctor 04:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Monarchies

In monarchies the criminal offence may be regarded as an offence against the king or the "king's peace" or the like rather than "society as a whole." This should be mentioned. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:09, 28 August 2002 (UTC)

Mens reas muddled

The use of the of homocide in the mens reas is muddled. To state that the act is "unlawful" killing includes the intent in the definition. (ITs in part the intent that makes it unlawful.) In addition, the definition of malice aforethought is over simplified. In short, theft might make a better example. --24.126.240.60 01:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Homicide does not have to be an unlawful killing. Homicide is a killing of a person by another (s). In fact, murder is homicide without mitigation, justification or excuse. MollyBloom 02:02-02:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Criminalization

Writing totally outside my normal scope of activity, I composed criminalization. Would some of our legal minds kindly glance over this entry and see if it is sustainable? JFW | T@lk 21:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you have selected an interesting topic. Much of what you say can be both sustained and justified. I did, however, feel compelled to add a section, beneath your treatment, getting further into the (I almost said thicket!) dilemma of political ontology -- i.e., the question of man's political or apolitical nature. I did not, however, consider this the place to question whether that distinction can be sustained. Many others of greater authority than I are working toward the solution of this problem. But it may be said here that, regardless of whether the universalist or particularist strains win out, the question of global crime enforcement has never been more pressing. James Seneca 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

EMBEZZELMENT

—The unsigned section heading above was added by 67.177.56.117 (talk · contribs) 02:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC).

The lawyers are sanitizing these pages.

The following although partially POV perhaps, contains the valid fact that a defendant with resources must pay for his own defence. Further this directly implies a more lucrative situation for the lawyers, as the defendant is forced to pay whatever it takes to save himself. This fact and its obvious implication belong on this page:

The state pays for the prosecution, whereas the defendant must pay for his own defense. This brings a very lucrative situation to the lawyer, since the defendant will pay anything to save himself. But in almost all but the most unusual cases the resources of the state far outstrip the resources of the defendant. This explains why the USA has far and away more people locked away than any country on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.157.143 (talk • contribs) 7:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC) ("LegalEagle1798 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)" added 2 weeks later.) ("explains" changed to "helps explain" at 06:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC) by 24.12.208.181 (talk · contribs))

Please see Legal aid - FrancisTyers 17:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This issue is fundumental and does not belong in legal aid anyway as that applies to indigent defendants. The fact that a defendant must pay for his own defense and is confronted by the full resources of the state is the cornerstone of criminal justice system in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC) ("LegalEagle1798 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)" added 2 weeks later.)

• The fact that anyone who can not or will not pay for an attorney will still get a public defender (also backed by the resources of the state) is the cornerstone of the justice system in the U.S., per the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright and numerous other cases that followed. Can you tell me, perchance, what proportion of criminal defendants are defended by public defenders as opposed to private attorneys? Can you tell me the average income of a private criminal defense attorney? If not, then I don't see where you have a basis for making your claims, as you seem to be mistaking underpaid criminal law practitioners with high-money rolling corporate attorneys. bd2412 T 23:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dont you see your whole statement here is irrelevant?????? The point is that the defendant, represented by a private attorney, is opposed by the vast resources of the state. This does not make for justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, so why are you attacking the lawyers when it's the state that creates this situation by throwing all those resources at criminals? The state should just let those poor criminals go, and then the lawyers would have nothing to do - is that your position? bd2412 T 00:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, let me rephrase that, since I almost got sucked in by your rhetorical tactic. My whole statement above is completely relevant. Your claim was that "the defendant must pay for his own defense. This brings a very lucrative situation to the lawyer, since the defendant will pay anything to save himself." Yet you have no idea what proportion of criminals are defended by the state, and no idea how much money criminal defense attorneys make (I'll give you a hint, it's less than plumbers and construction workers make). That was the point you made above, not the bit about the resources of the state that you shifted to when you found your initial claims unsupportable. You ought not puff your chest out with claims of things about which you can prove no actual knowledge. bd2412 T 00:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There are exactly zero defendants defended by the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

That statement is so easy to disprove that I'm not going to bother debating with you anymore:

In 1998, roughly 66 percent (two-thirds) of all federal felony defendants were represented by public defenders or other publicly funded counsel. At the county level, in 1996, 82 percent of felony defendants in the 75 most populous counties used public defenders.[1]

Note, by the way, that the "other publicly funded counsel" means regular lawyers who are required by the courts to represent criminals and paid as much as a regular public defender. Lawyers are also required by their bar associations to do plenty of pro bono work, and many represent criminal defendants for free to fulfill this obligation. I should know, I've been volunteering for over three years to help ex-felons file the paperwork to get their voting rights restored. bd2412 T 00:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that the vast resources of the state are alligned against the resources of the individual in criminal law in the USA. This implies a very lucrative situation for the lawyers as the defendant is compelled to pay anything to save himself, and it does not imply justice as the resources of the state are much greater than the resources of the individual.

Further, a defense funded by the state, and being actually defended by the state are two very different things entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 (talk • contribs) 00:55 & 01:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The above statement simply repeats your earlier incorrect (and now disproved) statement on the matter. bd2412 T 01:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I have read and reread your words here and I fail to see how you have disproved my statement on this matter. Apparently your argument is that since lawyers that defend indigent defendants are poorly paid, poorly paid at least in relation to other lawyers, that this cannot be a lucrative situation for lawyers. You have given no evidence that lawyers that represent criminal defendants with resources are poorly paid, and the logic of the situation suggests that such lawyers make a big buck. These defendants with resources are are forced to pay anything to save themselves. We know for a fact that lawyers that defend wealthy defendants make a fortune.

If anything you have only proved a third implication of the main premise, the poor defendants get the worst attorneys. This is because it is against human nature for the better attorneys to take the worst paying jobs. So let me repeat my statement with your new implication.

It is a fact that the vast resources of the state are alligned against the resources of the individual in criminal law in the USA. This implies a very lucrative situation for the lawyers as the defendant is compelled to pay anything to save himself, this also implies that poor defendants will get the worst lawyers since defending indigent defendants pays less than other lawyer jobs, and it does not imply justice as the resources of the state are much greater than the resources of the individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalEagle1798 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC) ("LegalEagle1798 20:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)" added later.)

• Please point out to me which countries do not array their vast resources of the state against criminal defendants. I'm not sure whether you're arguing that the state should try to do a bad job prosecuting criminals, or whether criminal defendants should not have the right to choose between a state-appointed attorney or a private attorney. Also, your claim that "it is against human nature for the better attorneys to take the worst paying jobs" disregards a few important facts, including pro bono obligations (under which even the best and most highly paid attorneys represent some people for free), and the power of judges to order private attorneys to defend criminal defendants. bd2412 T 21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Inquisitorial systemLegalEagle1798 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• I assure you that governments using inquisitorial systems do, in fact, prosecute criminals, and that the prosecution of the criminals is carried out by the state. It is the state that brings the criminal charges, gathers and arrays the evidence against the defendant, presents it to the judge, and presses for a conviction and a lengthy sentence. The formalities may differ, but the weight of the state's authority is unchanged. bd2412 T 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• I would also add that the argument against the adversary system takes for granted the role of the presumption of innocence in the justice system. The state has all its resources because at every step of criminal prosecution it has a hefty burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which, believe it or not, is a difficult task. If the state can’t prove its case, it doesn’t even matter how cheap or incompetent the defence lawyer is. A strong criminal defence typically becomes necessary only where the state has a strong case against the accused. Thus, so long as the state is doing its job properly, the likelihood of an innocent person being forced to pay huge amounts for their own defence is minimal. As for the claim about lawyers getting rich off the criminal prosecution, it is complete a myth. There is an obvious reason why a vast majority of law students choose to go into private civil practice. There is not much money is criminal law, and I am certain you’d be extremely hard pressed to find a criminal lawyer on either side who entered that career because of the money. --PullUpYourSocks 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I should get in the middle of this heated debate, but here it goes....The reality is a little different, at least in the US. Unfortunately, it is true that higher priced defense lawyers are more likely to get a 'not guilty' verdict for their clients. Many state budgets are such that public defenders (who are often very skilled lawyers) simply have too great a caseload to adequately defend their clients. And then, there are simply bad lawyers. I know of one young man who finally got a conviction reversed on incompetence of counsel, but that is rare - much more rare today than it used to be. The decks were stacked against this defendant. He was of Indian descent (from Trinidad), his trial was in October 2001, and the only evidence against him was one eyewitness id'd him out of 5 eyewitnesses. This should never have even got to trial, let along a conviction. He was fortunate, but still spent two years in prison for a crime he clearly did not commit. That does not mean the system doesn't work ever - of course that is not the case. However, there are some real problems that won't be resolved by continued cutting of funds for legal aid/public defenders and a 'tough on crime' mentality. MollyBloom 04:25 & 04:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In 2004 there were 14 million people arrested in the USA according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual Uniform Crime Report. There are two million people in jail in the USA. There is plenty of money in criminal law and it is silly to claim otherwise.

To the first poster here, you have missed the very important point that in inquisitorial systems it is the responsibility of the state to defend the defendant, whereas in an adversarial system such as the United States exactly zero defendants are defended by the state. To the second poster, this absurd system where the vast resources of the state are pitted against the resources of the individual cannot be made right by the caveat that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Let's start by looking at Michael Jackson case. There is no doubt that the specific charges leveled at Jackson in this case were extremely weak. The victim in this case had zero credibility. Perhaps a different case with a different victim would have had some merit, but that is completely beside the point. The specific charges made against Jackson in this case were extraordinarily weak.

This case alone with the huge publicity it generated disproves your main premise that a criminal defense typically becomes necessary only when the state has a strong case against the accused. Even if you have great celebrity and enormous resources, you must still fear that the state will prosecute you relying on a complaint with little merit. If you have ordinary resources and the state ensnares you with a complaint that lacks merit, and this can happen for a myriad of reasons, you are in serious trouble.

The OJ Simpson case shows that the state cannot be relied on to do its job properly in a criminal case in the adversarial system. At basically every stage and level of the investigation and trial in this case the state proved its incompetence. This was a case that was receiving enormous publicity and all of the players knew that their actions would receive greater scrutiny than in the run of the mill case. A strong case can be made that the incompetence and dysfunction on display in this trial merely reflected the general incompetence and dysfunction that happens day in and day out throughout the adversarial system of justice in the United States.

In the adversarial system the state abrogates all responsibility to defend those accused of crimes. The individual is left to his own resources against the vast resources of the state, and somehow this is all called justice by the caveat that the defendant must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This all does not work in theory and in the real world it works worse. LegalEagle1798 22:04, 4 February & 04:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Crimes Against the Government

The little organizational chart on the side of criminal law pages does not include a catigory of crimes against the Government, such as treason.

Clearly treason is a crime, yet it doesn't fit into the catigories provided (Crimes against person, property, Justice), shouldn't such a classification be added? 24.2.226.231 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Crimes against... society?

How about drug possesion crimes? I couldn't find anything that leads me to these types of crimes either. However if you ask me, these are societies crimes against human rights.

Drug crimes are found in California's Health and Safety Codes, for example. So they're crimes against the health and safety.. of society? It should clearly be here for at least in the US significant numbers are incarcerated for drug crimes.

Uh.. -- AllegedFelon032 71.104.156.240 12:37, 14 May through 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

how the CHAT effects the criminal drugs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.229.26.226 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Felony Complaints

The Fifth Amendment requirement of a Grand Jury & Indictment is not binding on the states. States are not required to use grand jury indictments. State felony cases begin either through the filing of a document with the court called a Complaint or through the finding of the Indictment. I edited this section accordingly.MollyBloom 07:30, 21 May & 04:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

US-centric?

This article seems incredibly US-biased, almost as though there were no criminal law apparatus for any other country. Of course, every item on this discussion page seems pretty heavily US-focused as well... I realize that the US is the Land of Lawyers, but am I missing a more general page for non-nation-specific criminal law somewhere (i.e. one that isn't full of references to the US Constitution and criminal codes), or should this page (or complex of pages, if the rest of the Law section is similarly written) be renamed US Criminal Law and a more general page or pages produced? At the very least, if this is meant to be a general entry, giving the US stuff an explicit section in it and keeping constitutional specifics confined to that might be a good start. -- Arvedui 15:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is so US-centric that it would be difficult to amend it to take account of the topic in general. I suggest it is renamed to Criminal Law (United States) and a new article started to cover the subject without bias. Reference could then be made to this article in the usual manner - "See main article etc...". I can't understand how articles of this calibre come to be written. Presumably the editors of this article are reasonably intelligent, and yet it's as if they don't realise there's a whole world out there, beyond the USA. Arcturus 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

this is such an appalling example that I decided to add a missing info template. Re-naming might still be the best solution, though. Harry R 14:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think {{Globalize/Eng}} would be more appropriate. Caveat lector 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hammurabi (or Hammurapi) Codex

I removed the code of Babylon. You write: "Criminal law in the United States, Canada, Australia, and many other countries is based on English common law. These, and other legal systems, are also influenced by early written codes, such as the Hammurabi Code."

When did the Hammurabi Code of Mesopotamia influence the western legal systems?

Where did you read that bulls? The first written code that really influenced the British law -and other western legal systems- was created by the Romans and only consisted of Roman "Mores", "Leges Regiae" and XII tables! Jack 12:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC) — (Posted by 82.58.198.245, 11:56 - 12:08, 15 January 2007 UTC)

You don't suppose Roman law was influenced by Hammurabi's Code? bd2412 T 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not directly, the Romans had no direct knowledge of it and neither did the world until AD 1901 when it was found by archaeologists. It might well have influenced other codes that influenced other codes, that were intermediate in time and space and influenced the Romans, such as maybe the Hittites, Greeks and Hebrews codes, but no one has proven this and we can't just make up our own unsourced theories here. Til Eulenspiegel 13:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That, for some reason, reminds me of Ozymandius - but everything that happens (on that scale, at least) influences everything that comes after. bd2412 T 15:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

More stuff

I'm expanding the main subjects here on the criminal law page, starting with the part on criminal conduct. New mens rea and actus reus sections. p.s. I applaud the removal of the codex hammurabi reference, as above. :) Wikidea 08:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

People will probably notice quite a lot has recently gone up. I've left a few section stubs for the time being, if anyone wants to make a start on summaries there. Wikidea 12:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've spent a lot of time trying to clean up this article so it fits better the standards of WP. However, I do not pretend to be an expert at all on criminal law. So if I made some mistake in removing or editing things too much, could someone who is more knowledgable in criminal please correct me? I apologize if I have changed the article too drastically. Stanselmdoc 16:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The Wikidea reverted introduction:

Criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to the body of law which deals with crimes and their consequences. Criminal acts are considered offences against the whole of a community. The state, in addition to certain international organisations, have responsibility for crime prevention, for bringing the culprits to justice, and for dealing with convicted offenders. The police, the criminal courts and prisons are all publicly funded services, though the main focus of criminal law concerns the role of the courts, how they apply criminal statutes passed by legislatures as well as common law, and why they criminalise some forms of behaviour. The ultimate goal of criminal law is hotly contested. Some believe criminal law is about punishing offenders because they deserve it and the victim deserves retributive justice. Others feel with enough punishment people will also be deterred from committing crimes. Some say criminal law is simply about removing people from society, to protect law abiding citizens by incapacitating the offender. Prisons can be see as a way to reform and rehabilitate people to go back into society. Offenders can be made to recognise their wrongs in relation to victims and make restitution for the harm. There are many more aims, which are often combined, which produces the mix of systems operating today.

The fundamentals of a crime are known as the actus reus and the mens rea of the crime. These two Latin terms mean "guilty act" (doing that which is prohibited) and "guilty mind" (i.e. the intent to commit the crime). The traditional view is that moral culpability requires that one should have recognised or intended that one was acting wrongly. Nevertheless, most jurisdictions have as many strict liability offences, which criminalize behaviour without the need to show moral wrongdoing. These are usually regulatory in nature, where the result of breach could have particularly harmful results, for instance drunk driving, but are sometimes purely paternalistic, as in charges of statutory rape for consensual sex. Offences can range from ones resulting in fatality, such as murder and manslaughter, to non-deadly offences against people, such as actual or grievous bodily harm, to offences concerning people's property, like criminal damage, theft, robbery or burglary. Importantly, one can still be liable for helping another person's criminal act, conspiring to do something prohibited or merely attempting. Defenses exist to some crimes, so that in some jurisdictions a person who is accused can plead they are insane and did not understand what they were doing, that they were not in control of their bodies, they were intoxicated, mistaken about what they were doing, acted in self defence, acted under duress or out of necessity, or were provoked. These are issues to be raised at trial, for which there are detailed rules of evidence and procedure to be followed. Laws vary in detail between jurisdictions, particularly in relation to the sentences handed down.

is redundant and not especially helpful. I prefer the shorter version, which is more in keeping with the spirit of WP:LEAD. THF 18:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, why you might prefer it a bit shorter, and maybe it's a bit wordy; this is what the WP:LEAD says:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article."

I bolded what I thought important. Maybe there can be a compromise on cutting bits that are too wordy, but keeping references to all the main points which necessarily appear throughout the article? The Wikidea 23:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC) :)

The recent changes

I am worried that the changes made recently have not improved the page at all.

1. A substantial amount of well referenced material has been deleted. This is not right, because at the very least it should be saved somewhere else. Just one example is the paragraph on necessity because it was said it was a marginal topic. Please see the main article. In fact it's quite a hot topic!

2. Separate jurisdictions should not appear at the top. On the Wikiproject law, the idea is to create a page which is cross-jurisdictional, so a general discussion should be the starting point.

3. That said, obviously to begin with the material there is about the English speaking world. This is partly inevitable on the English wikipages, but it perhaps states the obvious to put up an unsightly tag. I agree that as much information, well referenced from an expert should be brought in, and I encourage everyone with such knowledge to participate.

4. The introduction must summarise the article, as an overview, as is proscribed by WP:LEAD. That requires more than a small paragraph. I agree that the former introduction may have been too conversational, but let's work with that rather than chopping it, and keep the relevant links to the article's discussion.

5. The section now entitled "Punishment" is inadequate precisely because there are different goals that criminal law may aim to achieve. Punishment for offences is indeed a very strong strand of theory, but that goes along side the others (rehabilitation, incapacitation, restitution, etc) that are described there.

6. Lastly, on the more cosmetic side, the spelling has been unnecessarily Americanised (Americanized!) which runs counter to Wikipedia spelling policy. Also, the headings were consistent before (Criminal law history/goals/offences/defences/jurisdictions) which is a better manner of style.

7. It would be a positive next step to see additional material being put in. In the legal pages that means case references, statute references, discussion of substantive legal material. It would be welcome if this can be incorporated, and in some cases displace what is already there, if it improves the treatment of the issues which are common to every country. Wikidea 23:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have had to revert the changes to the page as it was previously; as far as I can see some changes were made to the syntax on top of the more problematic ones I described above; but I don't see how these can be easily separated. Hopefully good editors can work on that, should the problem be felt still; but as I remarked, I would be very grateful for substantive additions to what criminal law is in Europe, in the States, Australia, Canada, etc to be incorporated into the current body. I'm sure everyone will agree that this is the most important thing for people reading the page! Wikidea 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The page needed a complete rewrite. That slow process has been interrupted by the recent reverts, but rather than edit-war, I'll simply readd the tags. Please do not remove them without consensus. THF 03:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for these tags. Believe it or not we seem to be agreeing! As I made in my last point I am happy for the syntax to be cleaned up and for more cases, statutes and so on to be added from around the world. Can I put out a request that people help with cases and statutes on this? Wikidea 11:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with your decision to revert the changes of the past month, and not just because many of the changes were my own. The old article was terribly muddled, virtually impossible to read, and worst of all, inaccurate because it was inapplicable to 90% of the world. It was so bad that it earned a tag at WP:Cleanup that read: Article needs serious improvements. Muddy writing throughout. After a month of revision, and before your intemperate reversion, it was again readable and accurate. Virtually nothing was deleted outright. Instead, much was dropped into footnotes because all of the insignificant asides that you think important are simply asides and not very useful to the main article. As for the topic of necessity, it's a law book topic, not a real-life defense. To the extent that it exists as a separate defense, it applies only to murder, which is just one crime among many, and it does not apply in even many English-speaking jurisdictions. And I have yet to see a citation to a successful use of the defense (the article refers to failed uses of the defense). And that was pretty much the only topic that was deleted. Wikidea, I think that you should undo the reversion. Feel free to reorganize the article if you like but get rid of that awful intro that you've reintroduced and put all of the asides back into footnotes, where they belong. I welcome the comments of others. But I think wikidea's recent changes have undone much progress. --DRTïllberġ^Talk 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Necessity is a real-life defense (e.g., Woods v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)) and a marginal topic. I agree the new/old lead is a mess, but so is the whole article. THF 21:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite. I've corrected my statement above. Necessity is insignificant, but even if it were important, Wikidea's reversion still wouldn't be justified, IMHO. --DRTïllberġ^Talk 22:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so we agree on the necessity defence - the Re A Conjoined Twins case was a successful use of it too; I had in mind the actus reus and mens rea sections too which I think had been axed. I'll rework the introduction now again, because that's what Drtillberg you've said is the most awful! I accept that. Wikidea 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Redone intro, as I said I would - is that alright as it stands? Slimmer and less waffly. I've read through the elements section, made one or two amendments, but as I see it, it reads well while incorporating what you need to know. But please tell me. Just on one other point though, keep in mind that the focus on many English cases is a lot more relevant than one might think at first - not least because Commonwealth countries had the House of Lords till relatively recently as the highest instance of appeal (or the Privy Council to be precise) - Canada till 1933, Australia till 1986, New Zealand still, many countries in the Carribean till a couple of years ago, India till 1947, etc, etc. So more than half the English speaking world will have many of these cases in their own law; also keep in mind that in fact countries don't vary more than they have in common. I just point that out, but of course I agree that we need to integrate more global material. Wikidea 23:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The actus reus & mens rea sections were there and weren't removed. They simply were reorganized to reflect that they were leading components of a much abbreviated list of criminal laws. They weren't at the top of the article because the list of crimes in the American and English systems actually provided very little insight as to what made all of these things, and laws elsewhere, criminal laws. Most crimes have an actus reus, but isn't that just a gilded way of saying you have to do something? Causation of some harm isn't always a requirement, particularly for regulatory offenses. Some crimes have a mens rea requirement, but others don't. Obviously that isn't what make the criminal law the criminal law. If the actus reus and mens rea elements are not met, and there is nonetheless an adjudication of guilt and penalty, perhaps in a non-English-speaking context, does that mean that something other than the criminal law is involved? No. These are nice details, but they don't go very far toward explaining what the criminal law is. The first sentence of the present article is circular and confuses things further: criminal law is the body of law which deals with crimes and their consequences. The previous intro was more accurate and informative:

The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential for unique and potentially severe impositions as punishment for failure to comply. Criminal punishment, depending on the offense and jurisdiction, may include execution, loss of liberty, government supervision (parole or probation), or fines. There are some archetypal crimes, like murder, but the acts that are forbidden are not wholly consistent between different criminal codes, and even within a particular code lines may be blurred as civil infractions may give rise also to criminal consequences. Criminal law typically is enforced by the government, unlike the civil law, which may be enforced by private parties.

I can see how that might appear to some to be perfunctory, but I think it covers every one of the essentials. Anything not summarized could be removed from the article without much loss, although my own efforts at cleanup did not go that far.--DRTïllberġ^Talk 00:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• After considering this further, I think that there is no merit to Wikidea's reversion, which was done without discussion, much less consensus. Everyone who has commented in the last month thinks that the version that Wikidea restored is inadequate and needs a complete rewrite. That rewrite was ongoing, and the process should be restored. I am undoing the reversion. --DRTïllberġ^Talk 15:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the latest edits, I'm working to restore the changes you made, apart from the problems that I pointed out above. Please be patient! For convenience on the structure of the page, if you're interested, have a look at a contents outline of this leading textbook in the UK on Amazon and this one from the US also on Amazon - the reason being, just to show that the page structure is what's always followed in a standard text - actus reus, mens rea, strict liability, offences, defences (with the other discussion here and there too). Wikidea 22:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you insist on reverting the long-term efforts to clean up the article without establishing consensus that editors think that the old version was superior. I have listed this page on WP:Third opinion.--DRTïllberġ^Talk 06:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You had no consensus for your changes either, and a lot of it was WRONG! The changes were cosmetic, and if not, ill informed. I've tried to separate the two, I've also tried to point you to reasons why you were wrong, but don't pretend that you're the only one putting effort in on the article. That isn't helpful. I'm sorry mate, but you need to have a look at some law books. Good idea to list it on the third opinion page. Wikidea 07:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please: remarks like "you need to have a look at some law books" are unacceptable. You reverted more than just Drtillberg's edits. Several other editors fixed several other problems, and you just simply reverted the work of eleven editors. WP:OWN applies. Edit collaboratively, please. If Drtillberg's edits have errors, correct them: your edits have had lots of errors, too. THF 12:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've created Criminal law/Wikidea version for Wikidea to play with, since he seems to think he can't fix the article under the framework of edits made by eleven other editors. I invite him to edit this version to his heart's content, and, when he is finished, he can present the version to the talk page and ask for consensus to rewrite this version to reflect his preferred version. THF 13:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

• Third Opinion Hi everyone. First I have to say I was initially confused by the amount of participants in this conflict, because Drtillberg seems to have an identical signature to Wikidea. Anyway, Wikidea had every right to make the mass changes he did per WP:BOLD (the changes didn't seem "sweeping" enough to qualify for a consensus, IMO). However, I must agree with Drtillberg and THF that the edits are not that much of an improvement to what what already in place and so it may be wise to go back to the drawing board. The method of simply fixng eachother's mistakes bit by bit doesn't seem to be working, as Wikidea probably noticed. My suggestion is that Wikidea (or whoever else wants to) make a proposed rewrite (for some sections, not all, since that might be too much to agree on) and have THF and Drtillberg make improvements to it on the talk page before putting it up. If you all still can't decide on exactly how to fix it, gather interested parties and have a Mediated discussion on it. That's all I can really say third-opinion-wise without making my own additions to the page. Contact me if you need anything else. Bulldog123 18:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Further changes

I can't separate in the other sections what's changes and what isn't - and I request help if this is felt needed. Drtillberg, there were 2 main edit "chunks", one on July 29th, which I have done as best I can see - but the "chunk" before, 22nd-24th, looks like it was moving the structure about, rather than changing wording. (?) I see no problem in changing the text on the "goals" section - and the history section is a bit scant too, so please go ahead and change there as is felt appropriate (or tell me and I'll do it). For defences, this is a part that doesn't seem to need changes and it didn't look like there were any (apart from necessity, which we're over I think). For offences, these are still listed as stubs and need case references and statutes to go in, and the body isn't so crucial until it's expanded. Please have a look at those Amazon pages above again, or any good textbook that you've got to hand. Wikidea 23:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor cleanup: 'Death by capital punishment' is gramatically redundant. Capital punishment necessarily involves death, so there's not much point basically saying 'death may be inflicted by death'. LudBob 01:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

weapons possession 4th degree misd

what is the penalty for first time (i got caught with folding knife no more than over 4inchby half a inch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.68.211 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Criminal sanctions

Doesn't seem to mention compulsory labour. James500 (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)