Date of this Version

12-1-2001

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Details

Colvin, Eric. (2001) Ordinary and reasonable people: The design of objective tests of criminal responsibility. Monash University Law Review, 27 (2), 197-228

Access the Monash University Law Review

Copyright © Monash University 2001. All rights reserved.
Permission granted.

Abstract

This paper reviews the design of objective tests of criminal responsibility for serious offences. It is argued that their design should reflect two fundamental principles. First, there is the principle that there should be no penal liability without fault. It follows from this principle that there should be no responsibility for failure to attain a standard that was beyond the capacities of the accused. Secondly, there is the principle of proportionality between culpability and penal liability. It follows from this principle that, if objective tests are to be used for serious offences, responsibility should be restricted to breaches of minimal standards of conduct that were attainable with reasonable ease. We should reject major penal sanctions for failure to attain idealistic or difficult standards. Moreover, in order to ensure that a standard could have been attained with reasonable ease, objective tests should be adaptable for any special handicaps of the accused. The paper uses these ideas to review the formulations of criminal negligence and of the objective elements in the defences of self-defence, provocation, duress and necessity.

Included in

Criminal Law Commons

Share

COinS
 

This document has been peer reviewed.

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.