'Crime And Intentional Tort Essay\r'

'A hatred is unsexd as â€Å" toys or omissions that be in encroachment of law” (West’s encyclopaedia of American Law, 1998). The states and the federal judicature have enacted vicious laws that define each of the crimes and prescribe penalties in result of violation or commission (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 1998). The two elements of a woeful offense ar: â€Å"actus reus and mens rea; one is physical and the other, mental state” (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 1998).\r\nThus, â€Å"actus reus must be causally related to the mens rea for a crime to occur” marrow that the evil intention of the sound judgement must accord with the physical manifestation by the unlawful act (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 1998). However, as an elision to this rule, the courts have in a line of discriminative precedents ruled that in case of strict financial obligation the person who may not be â€Å"at fault or neg ligent” shall be legally liable for remedy to the injured companionship.\r\nThe injured party will only have to prove that he sustained damages (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 1998). Moreover, courts allowed liability on the basis of the actus reus alone as organism sufficient (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 1998). For instance, the employer is deemed liable for damages for the negligent acts of his employees while in the performance of their duties. Another example would be in the case of product liability where in the smart set is held liable for the injury sustained by a customer due to defective products.\r\nCrimes may be commit by natural and juridical persons. inbred persons are human beings while juridical persons are entities created by fiction of law deemed to be individuals clear of entering into contracts, owning and or possessing properties, enforcing rights and acquiring debts (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 1998). A c orporation therefore is a person. Corporations may be held liable for civil damages for the acts and conduct of the employees it employees.\r\nThis liability is known as vicarious liability (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 1998). Anent criminal liability, a corporation is not capable of committing a crime because it does not have a mind stateâ€lacking in â€Å"mens rea. ” It is too a legal fiction and therefore, one cannot put it fucking bars. The recent geezerhood however, showed a different vogue from these arguments. Nowadays, an American corporation engaged in criminal activities such as fraud can be convicted when the criminal conduct of its employee or officer is proven.\r\nThe federal organisation through the Deputy Attorney ecumenical cited the reasons for indicting corporations as being beneficial to public interests (Thompson, 2003). It â€Å"enables the government to address and be a force for imperious change of corporate culture, alter corp orate behavior, and prevent, discover, and penalise white collar crime” (Thompson, 2003). The federal government not only occupys the corporation but too the officers or agents of the corporations who apparently are guilty and culpable.\r\n devil recent cases may be cited to illustrate this point. The criminal prosecution of Ebbers where his former finance officer testified against him, resulted in at least a total of 85 years imprisonment consisting of â€Å"one ascertain of conspiracy, one count of securities fraud and seven counts of false regulatory filings” (Associated Press, 2005). It was also discovered that manipulation on the books of accounting resulted in the amount of $ 11 billion (Associated Press, 2005).\r\nIn another(prenominal) case, Reliant Energy Services, Inc. and four of its officers were criminally aerated for â€Å"manipulation of the California energy markets” (U. S. DOJ net site, 2004). Thus, when there is corruption in a company, n eglectfulness for the law, fails to see to it that internal mechanisms are in emplacement to detect fraud and corruption and thereafter fails to work in the investigation, the federal government vows to criminally prosecute the corporation (U. S. DOJ mesh site, 2004).\r\nIn two cases, the corporations involved were charged and prosecuted because of the pervasiveness of the violations such as when tell by upper management or when in conspiracy with the other officers of the corporation (U. S. DOJ web site, 2004). The rule of respondeat superior shall apply in case the violation is an isolated case as when perpetrate by a single officer and with a compliance program being implemented by the corporation.\r\nThe company can only act through its agents and officers, thus if an overwhelming majority have committed fraud or any criminal act, whence such act is considered the act of the corporationâ€the mens rea being the mental state of the culpable officers and agents. This is p enalized in amity with the Sentencing Guidelines. In the two cases cited, the respective companies are guilty of a felony because the charges were of serious nature with an imprisonment of to a greater extent than one year (West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, 1998). Corporate crime can be a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the penalization attached by law for its commission.\r\n'