Crimes are often classified into two major categories: mala se prohibitum (i.e., wrong [as or because] prohibited) and mala in se (i.e., wrong or evil in itself). Provide an example of each and explain why your chosen example fits the related category. Battery is defined as touching another person without his or her consent. From the second e-Activity, discuss the court’s holding, and support or oppose the court’s position. Explain your answer. ****e-activity**** Review the case Garratt v. Dailey. Be prepared to discuss. Criminal law.
ORDER HERE A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
An example of malum prohibitum crime and malum in se crime
Malum prohibitum is a criminal that is wrong because there exists a regulation or law prohibiting it. For example, Peter is hanging out with his friends behind an old building in his neighborhood, smoking marijuana. A police vehicle pulls up, and Peter is caught while his friends escape. Peter has numerous ounces of marijuana wrapped in small plastic bags. Peter has committed a malum prohibitum offense because the use and possession of marijuana is banned by the law in his jurisdiction. As Lippman (2014) claims, mala prohibita crimes are not inherently immoral and are only regarded wrong since they are banned by law. Criminal law.
Malum in se is a criminal act that is evil or wrong in itself. Mala in se crimes do not require extra reasons to show that they are immoral and they discernably and clearly affect or cause damage to other individuals. For example, a drunk driver dozed off while driving and he hit an oncoming car, killing a 5-year old male passenger in the vehicle he hit. This crime is malum in se because the crime was inherently evil and damaging in its consequences. As Lippman (2014) indicates, mala in se offenses are regarded as immoral in their nature and would be immoral even if the law does not prohibit them. Criminal law.
Garratt V. Dailey Case
In this case, the court held that a five year can be legally responsible for a tortious battery if he had the obligatory intent. I support the court’s decision because if Dailey knew with considerable certainty that Garratt planned to sit down from the place the boy had moved the lawn chair, the boy would be accountable for battery irrespective of his motivation. As assert Statsky (2012) asserts, intentionality is a major element to battery and for it to be liable, the tortfeaser being accused must be considerably sure that their deed would result in the offensive contact. Criminal law.