Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Basic Requirements of Modern Criminal Liability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems

  • 2411 Accesses

Abstract

Modern criminal law deals also with the question of personality, i.e. who is to be considered an offender under modern criminal law. This is also a question of applicability, as it relates to the possible applicability of criminal liability in the personal aspect. When coming across the words “criminal” or “offender”, most people associate it with “evil”. Criminals are considered socially evil. However, outlines of criminality include not only severe offenses, but also other behaviors which are not considered “evil” for most people.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, e.g., Steven J. Wolhandler, Voluntary Active Euthanasia for the Terminally Ill and the Constitutional Right to Privacy, 69 Cornell L. Rev . 363 (1984); Harold L. Hirsh & Richard E. Donovan, The Right to Die: Medico-Legal Implications of In Re Quinlan, 30 Rutgers L. Rev . 267 (1977); Susan M. Allan, No Code Orders v. Resuscitation: The Decision to Withhold Life-Prolonging Treatment from the Terminally Ill, 26 Wayne L. Rev. 139 (1980).

  2. 2.

    For the structure of the principle of legality in criminal law see Gabriel Hallevy, A Modern Treatise on the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law 5–8 (2010).

  3. 3.

    Ibid, at pp. 20–46.

  4. 4.

    Ibid, at pp. 67–78.

  5. 5.

    See, e.g., in Transcript of Proceedings of Nuremberg Trials, 41 American Journal of International Law 1–16 (1947).

  6. 6.

    Hallevy, supra note 2, at pp. 97–118.

  7. 7.

    Ibid, at pp. 118–129.

  8. 8.

    Ibid, at pp. 135–137.

  9. 9.

    Ibid, at pp. 137–138.

  10. 10.

    Ibid, at pp. 138–141.

  11. 11.

    See, e.g., sub-article 58(c)(1) of the Soviet Penal Code of 1926 as amended in 1950. This sub-article provided that mature relatives of the first degree of convicted traitor are punished with five years of exile.

  12. 12.

    See above supra note 5.

  13. 13.

    Scales v. United States, 367 U.S. 203, 81 S.Ct. 1469, 6 L.Ed.2d 782 (1961); Larsonneur, (1933) 24 Cr. App. R. 74, 97 J.P. 206, 149 L.T. 542; Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law 106–107 (5th ed., 2006); Anderson v. State, 66 Okl.Cr. 291, 91 P.2d 794 (1939); State v. Asher, 50 Ark. 427, 8 S.W. 177 (1888); Peebles v. State, 101 Ga. 585, 28 S.E. 920 (1897); Howard v. State, 73 Ga.App. 265, 36 S.E.2d 161 (1945); Childs v. State, 109 Nev. 1050, 864 P.2d 277 (1993).

  14. 14.

    See, e.g., Smith v. State, 83 Ala. 26, 3 So. 551 (1888); People v. Brubaker, 53 Cal.2d 37, 346 P.2d 8 (1959); State v. Barker, 128 W.Va. 744, 38 S.E.2d 346 (1946).

  15. 15.

    See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Herd, 413 Mass. 834, 604 N.E.2d 1294 (1992); State v. Curry, 45 Ohio St.3d 109, 543 N.E.2d 1228 (1989); State v. Barrett, 768 A.2d 929 (R.I.2001); State v. Lockhart, 208 W.Va. 622, 542 S.E.2d 443 (2000).

  16. 16.

    See, e.g., Beason v. State, 96 Miss. 165, 50 So. 488 (1909); State v. Nickelson, 45 La.Ann. 1172, 14 So. 134 (1893); Commonwealth v. Mead, 92 Mass. 398 (1865); Willet v. Commonwealth, 76 Ky. 230 (1877); Scott v. State, 71 Tex.Crim.R. 41, 158 S.W. 814 (1913); Price v. State, 50 Tex.Crim.R. 71, 94 S.W. 901 (1906).

  17. 17.

    See, e.g., Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 20 S.Ct. 729, 44 L.Ed. 874 (1900); State v. Bowen, 118 Kan. 31, 234 P. 46 (1925); Hughes v. Commonwealth, 19 Ky.L.R. 497, 41 S.W. 294 (1897); People v. Cherry, 307 N.Y. 308, 121 N.E.2d 238 (1954); State v. Hooker, 17 Vt. 658 (1845); Commonwealth v. French, 531 Pa. 42, 611 A.2d 175 (1992).

  18. 18.

    Gabriel Hallevy, The Matrix of Derivative Criminal Liability 1–61 (2012).

  19. 19.

    Dugdale, (1853) 1 El. & Bl. 435, 118 Eng. Rep. 499, 500: “…the mere intent cannot constitute a misdemeanour when unaccompanied with any act”; Ex parte Smith, 135 Mo. 223, 36 S.W. 628 (1896); Proctor v. State, 15 Okl.Cr. 338, 176 P. 771 (1918); State v. Labato, 7 N.J. 137, 80 A.2d 617 (1951); Lambert v. State, 374 P.2d 783 (Okla.Crim.App.1962); In re Leroy, 285 Md. 508, 403 A.2d 1226 (1979).

  20. 20.

    For the principle of legality in criminal law see Hallevy, supra note 2.

  21. 21.

    Ibid at pp. 135–137.

  22. 22.

    Ibid at pp. 49–80.

  23. 23.

    Ibid at pp. 81–132.

  24. 24.

    See, e.g., in the United States, Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417, 8 L.Ed.2d 758 (1962).

  25. 25.

    Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part sec. 11 (2nd ed., 1961).

  26. 26.

    Andrew Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law 157–158, 202 (5th ed., 2006).

  27. 27.

    G.R. Sullivan, Knowledge, Belief, and Culpability, Criminal Law Theory – Doctrines of the General Part 207, 214 (Stephen Shute and A.P. Simester eds., 2005).

  28. 28.

    See, e.g., article 2.02(5) of The American Law Institute, Model Penal Code – Official Draft and Explanatory Notes 22 (1962, 1985), which provides:

    When the law provides that negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely.

  29. 29.

    William S. Laufer, Corporate Bodies and Guilty Minds, 43 Emory L. J. 647 (1994); Kathleen F. Brickey, Corporate Criminal Accountability: A Brief History and an Observation, 60 Wash. U. L. Q. 393 (1983).

  30. 30.

    William Searle Holdsworth, A History of English Law 475–476 (1923).

  31. 31.

    William Searle Holdsworth, English Corporation Law in the 16th and 17th Centuries, 31 Yale L. J. 382 (1922).

  32. 32.

    William Robert Scott, The Constitution and Finance of English, Scotish and Irish Joint-Stock Companies to 1720 462 (1912).

  33. 33.

    Bishop Carleton Hunt, The Development of the Business Corporation in England 1800–1867 6 (1963).

  34. 34.

    See, e.g., 6 Geo. I, c.18 (1719).

  35. 35.

    New York & G.L.R. Co. v. State, 50 N.J.L. 303, 13 A. 1 (1888); People v. Clark, 8 N.Y.Cr. 169, 14 N.Y.S. 642 (1891); State v. Great Works Mill. & Mfg. Co., 20 Me. 41, 37 Am.Dec.38 (1841); Commonwealth v. Proprietors of New Bedford Bridge, 68 Mass. 339 (1854); Commonwealth v. New York Cent. & H. River R. Co., 206 Mass. 417, 92 N.E. 766 (1910).

  36. 36.

    John C. Coffee, Jr., “No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick”: An Unscandalised Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment, 79 Mich. L. Rev. 386 (1981).

  37. 37.

    Langforth Bridge, (1635) Cro. Car. 365, 79 Eng. Rep. 919.

  38. 38.

    Clifton (Inhabitants), (1794) 5 T.R. 498, 101 Eng. Rep. 280; Great Broughton (Inhabitants), (1771) 5 Burr. 2700, 98 Eng. Rep. 418; Stratford-upon-Avon Corporation, (1811) 14 East 348, 104 Eng. Rep. 636; Liverpool (Mayor), (1802) 3 East 82, 102 Eng. Rep. 529; Saintiff, (1705) 6 Mod. 255, 87 Eng. Rep. 1002.

  39. 39.

    Severn and Wye Railway Co., (1819) 2 B. & Ald. 646, 106 Eng. Rep. 501; Birmingham, &c., Railway Co., (1842) 3 Q. B. 223, 114 Eng. Rep. 492; New York Cent. & H.R.R. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481, 29 S.Ct. 304, 53 L.Ed. 613 (1909); United States v. Thompson-Powell Drilling Co., 196 F.Supp. 571 (N.D.Tex.1961); United States v. Dye Construction Co., 510 F.2d 78 (10th Cir.1975); United States v. Carter, 311 F.2d 934 (6th Cir.1963); State v. I. & M. Amusements, Inc., 10 Ohio App.2d 153, 226 N.E.2d 567 (1966).

  40. 40.

    United States v. Alaska Packers’ Association, 1 Alaska 217 (1901).

  41. 41.

    United States v. John Kelso Co., 86 F. 304 (Cal.1898); Lennard’s Carrying Co. Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Co. Ltd., [1915] A.C. 705.

  42. 42.

    Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kent and Sussex Contractors Ltd., [1944] K.B. 146, [1944] 1 All E.R. 119; I.C.R. Haulage Ltd., [1944] K.B. 551, [1944] 1 All E.R. 691; Seaboard Offshore Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Transport, [1994] 2 All E.R. 99, [1994] 1 W.L.R. 541, [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 593.

  43. 43.

    Granite Construction Co. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal.App.3d 465, 197 Cal.Rptr. 3 (1983); Commonwealth v. Fortner L.P. Gas Co., 610 S.W.2d 941 (Ky.App.1980); Commonwealth v. McIlwain School Bus Lines, Inc., 283 Pa.Super. 1, 423 A.2d 413 (1980); Gerhard O. W. Mueller, Mens Rea and the Corporation – A Study of the Model Penal Code Position on Corporate Criminal Liability, 19 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 21 (1957).

  44. 44.

    Hartson v. People, 125 Colo. 1, 240 P.2d 907 (1951); State v. Pincus, 41 N.J.Super. 454, 125 A.2d 420 (1956); People v. Sakow, 45 N.Y.2d 131, 408 N.Y.S.2d 27, 379 N.E.2d 1157 (1978).

  45. 45.

    Stuart Field and Nico Jorg, Corporate Liability and Manslaughter: Should We Be Going Dutch?, [1991] Crim. L.R. 156 (1991).

  46. 46.

    Gerard E. Lynch, The Role of Criminal Law in Policing Corporate Misconduct, 60 Law & Contemp. Probs. 23 (1997); Richard Gruner, To Let the Punishment Fit the Organization: Sanctioning Corporate Offenders Through Corporate Probation, 16 Am. J. Crim. L. 1 (1988); Steven Walt and William S. Laufer, Why Personhood Doesn’t Matter: Corporate Criminal Liability and Sanctions, 18 Am. J. Crim. L. 263 (1991).

  47. 47.

    United States v. Allegheny Bottling Company, 695 F.Supp. 856 (1988).

  48. 48.

    Ibid, at p. 858.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    John C. Coffee, Jr., “No Soul to Damn: No Body to Kick”: An Unscandalised Inquiry Into the Problem of Corporate Punishment, 79 Mich. L. Rev. 386 (1981); Steven Box, Power, Crime and Mystification 16–79 (1983); Brent Fisse and John Braithwaite, The Allocation of Responsibility for Corporate Crime: Individualism, Collectivism and Accountability, 11 Sydney L. Rev. 468 (1988).

  51. 51.

    Allegheny Bottling Company case, supra note 48, at p. 861.

  52. 52.

    Ibid, at p. 861.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Ono Academic College, Kiryat Ono, Israel

    Gabriel Hallevy

Authors
  1. Gabriel Hallevy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hallevy, G. (2015). Basic Requirements of Modern Criminal Liability. In: Liability for Crimes Involving Artificial Intelligence Systems. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10124-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation