Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
What are the advantages and disadvantages of 'reactive' and 'proactive' approaches to police investigation?
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 2001 Views: 2221 Comments: 0
Both Reactive and Proactive police investigations are used in Britain today in order to apprehend and punish criminals for breaking the law, from crimes like burglary and assault, to much more serious crimes such as drug dealing, fraud and murder. The crime control model states how important law enforcement is, as, unless criminal conduct is kept under tight control, the view is that there will be a breakdown in public order and a limit to human freedom. This essay aims to introduce and describe the two methods of policing and also to discuss their advantages and disadvantages. The...

In conclusion, both reactive and proactive methods of policing are invaluable and necessary if practised along side one another. Reactive aims to deal with the consequences of crime and the victims, whereas proactive is a more crime preventative measure, aiming to stop the crime before it happens. There is much scope for improvement inside the system and many problems, such as the time consuming reactive work, which allows the officers little time for anything else. Also the proactive approach only works if the forces have adequate staff, equipment and training to deal with the demand on them.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

"The transmission of such a price-list..."The transmission of such a price-list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so, the merchant might find himself involved in any number of contractual obligations to supply wine of a particular description which he would be quite unable to carry out, his stock of wine of that description being necessarily limited. I entertain, I confess, a very clear opinion that the Solicitor-General was quite right in arguing the case on the assumption that no sales were made in this country." Lord Herschell Just over one hundred years ago the above ratio-decendi was given in what was at the time a case concerned with alleged back taxes owed by Grainger & Son. Grainger & Son henceforth referred to as G&S were British wine merchants who as a side venture passed on the price lists of a French wine producer to their customers. G&S received a commission on any orders placed with said producer and paid tax on this commission. Gough claimed that tax was payable on the whole value of these sales not just the commission element. Monsieur Roederer henceforth Mr R was a wine producer located in France. He decided whether to accept orders the orders gathered by G&S or not. The reason for this being that the wine was shipped out ahead of any payment being received and Mr R wanted to vett his customers credit worthiness. The wine was shipped directly to the customer in the UK from France. Most customers settled their accounts directly with Mr R. A few customers instead made payment to G&S who would pass on to Mr R any amounts in excess of the commission they happened to be owed. In summary the flows of events are: Mr R, located in France, sends price list to G&S in Britain G&S distribute price list Customer places, for want a better word, an order with G&S for wine produced by Mr R G&S forward order to Mr R Mr R dispatches wine to customer Mr R dispatches bill for said customers wine to G&S for onwards transmission G&S forward bill to customer Customer sends payment to Mr R "“ occasionally made to G&S who forward this to Mr R Mr R sends receipt to customer G&S pay tax on commission received G&S maintained that they entered no contracts regarding Mr R's wine. Gough held the converse view that G&S entered contracts themselves and thus sold Mr R's wine. Our starting point must be to define what a contract under English law is. The Jurists Bentham and Austin have laid down that the "two main essentials of a contract are these: first, a signification by the promising party of his intention to do the acts or to observe the forbearances which he promises to do or to observe. Secondly, a signification by the promise that he expects the promising party will fulfil the proffered promise." More precisely to form a contract under English law the following elements are required i a valid offer has been proffered by the first party to another party or parties ii the offer has been accepted unchanged by the second party or parties and this has been communicated to the offerer . iii there is an intention by all parties to create legal relations when they entered into the contract and the parties have the capacity to contract iv the promises made within the contract are for valuable executive consideration and v the terms of the contract are certain. Did Mr R make an offer through the medium of his price list. Looking in Mozley and Whiteley"s Law dictionary an offer is "An expression of readiness to do something e.g. to purchase or sell". Mr R is saying that he is willing to sell wine. Based on this definition initial opinion would say that the price list does constitute an offer. Continuing with this line of thought G&S acted in an agency capacity for Mr R making an offer to the customers they approached and receiving the acceptance of any order. If the customers accepted G&S's offer made via the medium of the price list then Mr R merely shipped directly from France. The bills for said wine were sent to G&S who would then forward them on to the British customer. These points all suggest that the sale was made in the UK by G&S. The listing of Mr R, in the Post Office London Directory, as trading from G&S's establishment further hints at an agency type arrangement. Much of the argument supporting the invitation to treat viewpoint is by drawing analogies with cases involving auctions such as Payne v. Cave 1789 and Harris v. Nickerson 1873 in which both concluded that bidders make an offer which the auctioneer is free to accept or not. The bidder's offer being retractable until accepted by the auctioneer . The pricelist could be seen as statement of the minimum price at which Mr R would bewilling to sell wine drawing analogies with Harvey v Facey 1893. Mr R's supply of wine in any year is finite and demand could outstrip supply leaving an impossible back log of orders all demanding specific performance. Mr R could possibly, though extremely doubtfully, claim the defence of frustration as the things contracted for no longer exist. Add to this Mr R's option to reject any order makes it appear that his price list is an invitation to treat as otherwise it would be an offer that is subject to revocation without notice. Acceptance of an offer has to be communicated. At the time of this case, 1896, the only readily available methods of communication for distant parties were the postal system or telegram. The postal rule would apply to any customers acceptance sent via these mediums and hence any revocation of the offer would be impossible The final item to consider is the peculiar concept of consideration to be found in the English legal system and those derived from it The 1677 Statute of Frauds made consideration vital in any contracts not made under seal. G&S received no consideration for the wine therefore they could not be a party to the contract. [Transfer of title occurred only between Mr R and the customer]. That occasionally the payments for the wine were made to G&S instead of directly to Mr R was held to be equivalent to Mr R, for the sole convenience of his customers, operating a British bank account to receive payments. Graiger v. Gough was one of the major cases in the creation of the principle of invitation to treat. In order to explore this principle more fully the case will be re-examined as it occurred today. Once again the starting point is was the price list an offer or merely a willingness to deal. There are a number of variants on an invitation to treat these are: pre-contractional negotiations , shop displays and finally advertisements. G&S's supply of the price list to potential customers is a form of direct marketing and falls under the last of these three categories. To be classed as a unilateral offer the price list would have to show some intention to be bound by pro-offering a tangible benefit, in excess of sales puff, that could be accepted by performance rather than communication . Is there any similarity to Bowerman v. ABTA 1995 or Carhill v. Carbolic Smokeball Company 1892. If the answer to this is a negative then the next step is to determine where the act of offer & acceptance occurs. In a face to face situation such as a shop the customer offers to buy goods by presenting them at the till and the shop either accepts or rejects this offer to buy. The goods on the shelves are merely invitations to treat in keeping with the findings of Fisher v. Bell and Pharmaceutical Society of GB v. Boots Cash Chemists. The views of this in America and the European Community are slightly different. Although it seems odd that a shop would not want to sell its stock the English legal system is designed to achieve consistency even if it has to distort the persons actual intent. This produces oddities such as Partridge v. Crittenden 1968 where a newspaper advert to sell wild birds was found to be an invitation to treat not an offer to sell so the defendant escaped prosecution under the Protection of Birds Act 1954 . A key point in the original Graniger v. Gough was where was the contract made. Today the location of the act of contracting can be different depending on the mode of acceptance. The postal rule puts acceptance at the place of posting. Where both parties use a telex or nowadays facsimile machine the Court of Appeal decided in the case of Entores Ltd v. Miles Far East Corporation 1955 that the contract was entered into when and where the acceptance was received. Lord Denning confirmed, obiter" that the same principles also apply to acceptances by telephone. Answering machines and voice mail are assumed to at maximum delay receipt of the acceptance till the next working day rather than grant them an agent status capable of entering contracts. Faulty hardware, lack of link & paper or sloppy business practice, such as not checking the fax for days, does not stop or delay the acceptance of an offer. Public holidays and weekends however do delay acceptance till the next working day. E-mail contrary to popular belief is not always an instant form of communication. An e-mail may pass through a number of third parties networks & servers and could quite possibly be considerably delayed. Also the recipient has to actively retrieve their e-mail from their service providers or works mail server. The Uniform Laws on International Sales Act 1967 sets out that the acceptance of an offer becomes effective at the moment the indication of assent reaches the offeror . But is the offer accepted in the country of the readers computer or where the email server is hosted? If a person picked up the contents of their phones answer machine in a country different to that which said machine was in, where was the contract made. Within closed networks or Electronic Data Interchange systems mail delivery is more reliable and it may be possible to tag the e-mails so they generate a receipt message upon reaching their destination and upon being read. The EDI Trading Partner Agreements will also outline when acceptance takes place and which countries laws apply. If Mr R had a website that could receive customer orders would it be an invitation to treat or an electronic contracting agent ? A non-interactive site just listing his wines would most certainly be classed as an advert. This question is under consideration by may of the worlds legal minds. Unfortunately the Argos £2.99 television and recent Kodak £100 digital camera incident never made it to court so there is no precedent. The Kodak site took the customers order and issued an order confirmation which the customer was asked to retain for warranty service. Consumers would believe that having placed their order and given their credit card details and been told that the £100 will be charged to their card along with receiving an acknowledgement ,that their purchase has been made. This "clickwrap contract" is what the law calls a "contract of adhesion" -- a contract you didn"t really bargain over in any way, but which was presented as more of a take-it-or-leave-it offer . Kodak made such a bad bargain that everyone wanted to take it The only case on web based retail sales so far is American where the court stated "such an automated, ministerial act cannot constitute an acceptance" which does little to resolve the issue. As international web based commerce increases, instances similar to Gough v. Granger will become more common. Will the concept of invitation to treat expand outside of legal systems based around Anglo-American common law bringing some consistency to the dynamics of offer & acceptance or will the EU idea of its an offer until the stock runs out be adopted.   

"The transmission of such a price-list does not amount to an offer to supply an unlimited quantity of the wine described at the price named, so that as soon as an order is given there is a binding contract to supply that quantity. If it were so, the merchant might...

Words: 2066 View(s): 4043 Comment(s): 0
Explain the role of recklessness in...Explain the role of recklessness in determining criminal liability. In everyday language, recklessness means taking an unjust risk. However its definition in law is different to its ordinary English meaning and careful direction as to its meaning in law has to be given to the jury. There are two types of recklessness, which exist, subjective recklessness, also known as Cunningham recklessness, and objective recklessness, which is also know as Caldwell recklessness. Caldwell recklessness only applies to criminal damage. For a defendant to be guilty under Cunningham recklessness he must have consciously undertaken an unjust risk. He must realize that there is a risk involved but if he continues to carry on with his conduct, then he is reckless. A case to illustrate this is R v Cunningham "“ Cunningham pulled a gas meter of a wall in a house intending to steal money. He broke the main gas pipe, releasing gas into the rest of the house which was inhaled by the old lady that lived there. The C/A quashed the conviction due to a miss-direction by the trial judge as to the word 'malicious' under S.23 O.P.A 1861-maliciously administering a poison "we wish to make clear that the test is subjective that the knowledge of appreciation that the risk of some danger must have entered the defendants mind even though he may have suppressed or driven it out". This case defined this type of recklessness therefore called Cunningham recklessness. Caldwell recklessness is different, firstly it only applies in cases of criminal damage. The case of MPC v Caldwell created new and much wider tests for recklessness. Caldwell was an ex-employee of a hotel and nursed a grudge against its owner. He started a fire at the hotel, which caused some damage and was charged with arson. This offence is defined in the Criminal Damage Act 1971 as requiring either intention or recklessness. On the facts there was no intention and, on the issue of recklessness, Lord Diplock stated that the definition of recklessness in Cunningham was to narrow for the Criminal Damage Act 1971. For that act, he said, recklessness should not only include the Cunningham meaning, but also go further. He said that a person is reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged if: 1. He does an act which in fact creates an obvious risk that property would be destroyed or damaged and 2. When he act he has either not given any thought to the possibility of their being any such risk or has recognized that there was some risk involved and has nonetheless gone on to do it. Thus there are actually two potential ways that Caldwell recklessness can be proved. The first way is very similar to the old Cunningham test: 'he does an act which in fact creates"¦a risk"¦and"¦has recognized that their was some risk; The second way is the important extension to the meaning of recklessness: 'he does an act which in fact creates"¦an obvious risk"¦and"¦he has not given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk'. Without these types of recklessness there would be a large gap in the law in areas such as criminal damage, Caldwell recklessness. And in areas such as non-fatal offences against the person and rape and indecent assault, Cunningham recklessness. What are the problems associated with recklessness and discuss proposals for reform One problem with recklessness is the two tests. Having two different tests for the same word causes confusion and is unnecessary. As the law currently stands concern has been expressed that the higher Cunningham standard is applied to rape and the lower Caldwell standard is applied to criminal damage. This means property is better protected than people. Another problem is the adoption of Caldwell recklessness means that a mens rea generally considered less morally blameworthy than Cunningham recklessness is being applied to some serious offences. Lord Diplock argued that there were three good reasons for extending the test for recklessness. First, a defendant may be recklessness in the ordinary sense of the word, meaning careless, regardless or heedless of the possible consequences, even though the risk of harm had not crossed his mind. Secondly, a tribunal of fact cannot be expected to rule confidently on whether the accused's state of mind has crossed 'the narrow dividing line' between being aware of risk and not troubling to consider it. Thirdly, the latter state of mind was no less blameworthy than the former. A third problem is the Caldwell test has blurred the distinction between recklessness and negligence. Before Caldwell, there was an obvious difference: recklessness meant knowingly taking a risk; negligence traditionally meant unknowingly taking a risk of which you should have been aware. Caldwell clearly comes very close to negligence. There is also a problem with the lacuna, the case of R v Merrick has been criticized as unrealistic. In practice, replacing electrical equipment often creates a temporary danger which cannot be avoided, yet technically each time in criminal law the electrician is reckless. Another problem is the reasonable man test can be very harsh with defendants that are young or perhaps retarded. Elliott v C 1983 "“ A backward 14-year-old set fire to a shed. She was charged with arson and the court held the test of a reasonable man took no account of her particular characteristics. Coles 1995 "“ The C/A said the same thing when a 15-year-old boy set fire to a hay barn with others sitting on top of the hay. As you can see there are many problems associated with recklessness. Some suggestions for reform are the Law Commission draft Criminal Liability mental element Bill provides a redefinition of mens rea generally, and defines recklessness in subjective terms, in accordance with Cunningham rather than Caldwell recklessness. However, in 1996 when reviewing the law on manslaughter, the Law Commission confronted the issue of liability for consequences that are neither intended nor knowingly risked. It concluded that criminalizing the inadvertent causing of death where the risk of death or serious injury is obviously foreseeable and where the defendant has the capacity to advert to the risk. Another suggestion for reform is reversion to Cunningham alone. Smith and Hogan argue that a distinction should be made between someone who knowingly takes a risk, and someone who simply gives no thought to the fact that there might be a risk. They might both be blameworthy, but not, in Smith and Hogan's opinion, equally so. They recommend reverting to the stricter Cunningham definition for recklessness. The last suggestion for reform I am going to mention is including characteristics of the defendant. If the purpose of Caldwell is to insure that people do not get away with giving no thought to a risk of which they should have been aware, a fairer test of what constitutes an obvious and serious risk might be 'in the circumstances, should the defendant given such characteristics as age, or any mental incapability have realized there was a risk? This would ensure that blameworthy thoughtlessness would insure liability, but would exclude the unfairness of cases like Elliott. That was a few proposals for reform for recklessness. My opinion is that they should bring in the last proposal I mentioned because I feel the law is very unfair on people in cases such as Elliott.   

Explain the role of recklessness in determining criminal liability. In everyday language, recklessness means taking an unjust risk. However its definition in law is different to its ordinary English meaning and careful direction as to its meaning in law has to be given to the jury. There are two types...

Words: 1234 View(s): 274 Comment(s): 0
Gun violence is one of the...Gun violence is one of the most serious problems in the United States. Each year in the U.S., more than 35,000 people are killed by guns, a death rate much higher than that in any other industrial nations. In 1997, approximately 70 percent of the murders in the United States were committed with guns. However, ironically, the United States also is the country that has the most gun control laws. Gun control laws generally focus on passing legislation"”by local state, or national government"”to restrict legal ownership of certain firearms. Seemingly, gun control laws may decrease criminals' access to guns, but in fact the same laws also have their negative effects. Thus, the controversy over gun control is always heated. But my paper is not about whether guns should be controlled or not. From another angle, looking closely at those gun control laws and their enforcement, we can not only see the criminal problem in America, but also another important social problem in America"”racial discrimination. The racial problem of gun control has raised attention of some American scholars in the U.S. For example, a black man, General Lancy, who is the founder of a little organization known as the National Black Sportsman's Association, often called "the black gun lobby" said when asked his opinion of gun control: "Gun control is really race control. People who embrace gun control are really racists in nature. All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people, mainly black people"¦" Some white men have said almost the same thing. Investigative reporter Robert Sherrill concluded in his book The Saturday Night Special that the object of the Gun Control Act of 1968 was black control rather than gun control. Congress passed the act to "shut off weapons access to blacks, and since they Congress probably associated cheap guns with ghetto blacks and thought cheapness was peculiarly the characteristic of imported military surplus and the mail-order traffic, they decided to cut off these sources while leaving over-the-counter purchases open to the affluent." Gun control in the United States has its history. Prohibitions against the sale of cheap handguns originated in the post-Civil War South. In the 1870s and 1880s, small pistols costing as little as 50 or 60 cents were obtainable, and since they could be afforded by blacks and poor whites, these guns posed a significant threat to those who were wealthy or powerful. They were afraid that blacks and poor whites possessing guns would break their established social structure. So consequently, in 1870, Tennessee banned "selling all but 'the Army and Navy model' handgun". Of course this type of gun was the most expensive one, which was beyond the means of most blacks and laboring people. In 1881, Arkansas enacted an almost identical ban on the sale of cheap revolvers. In 1902, South Carolina banned the sale of handguns to all but "sheriffs and their special deputies". In 1893 and 1907, respectively, Alabama and Texas passed extremely heavy taxes on the sale of such weapons to put handguns out of the reach of the blacks and poor whites. The same thing happened in the North. Attempts to regulate the possession of guns began in the northern states during the early 20th century. These regulations were almost the same with their counterparts in South in essence although they had different focuses. In 1911, New York enacted its Sullivan Law requiring a police permit for legal possession of a handgun rather than trying to keep handguns out of means of blacks and the poor whites. This law made it possible for the police to screen applicants for permits to possess handguns. Such a requirement may seem reasonable, it can and has been abused. Those who are not in favor with the influential or the police are easily suspected and denied permits. The act was designed to "strike hardest at the foreign-born element" particularly Italians, Catholics and Jews. Those who were considered racially inferior found it almost impossible to obtain gun permits. Over the years, as the police seldom granted handgun permits to any person but the wealthy and influential, application of the Sullivan Law has become increasingly elitist . Then why those gun control proponents would always deny that those controls are either racist or elitist in effects? Of course the intent of those control apply to everybody and aim at reducing violence for everybody, but the controls are in fact racist or elitist in effect. We can easily notice that the anger towards weapon is originated from the anger towards criminals. Most people, when they are hearing of an especially heinous crime, or when they are victimized, feel angry and hostile towards the offender of the crime. The uncomfortable feeling can be easily transferred from the offender to an inanimate object "“ the weapon. Although the illegal possession of a handgun or of any gun is a crime, it doesn't produce a victim and is difficult to be reported to the police, therefore handgun permit requirements or handgun prohibitions aren't easily enforced. And when laws are difficult to enforce, "enforcement becomes progressively more haphazard until at last the laws are used only against those who are unpopular with the police." Of course minorities aren't likely to be popular with the police. These minorities, because of police indifference or perhaps even hostility, may be the most inclined to look to guns for protection. On the one hand, they can't acquire guns legally and on the other hand, it will put them in danger if possessed illegally. So while the intent of such laws may not be racist, their effect certainly is. Today, the dispute over gun-control, like those of days gone by, breaks out among different social classes. Most of the dedicated proponents of strict gun controls are urban, upper-middle-class people, many of whom are to some degree influential. On the other hand, the most dedicated opponents of gun control are often rural, working- or middle-class people, few of whom can publicize their views, but many of whom know a lot about the safe and lawful uses of guns. To these Americans, guns mean freedom and security. The gun controls dispute, therefore, has become a conflict that affluent Americans attempting to impose their discrimination on working-class people who are comfortable with guns. Above all, we have enough evidences to conclude that gun control in America, not concerning whether it should be or should not be, is a kind of racial discrimination. Now we can admit how right General Laney said: "All gun laws have been enacted to control certain classes of people"¦"   

Gun violence is one of the most serious problems in the United States. Each year in the U.S., more than 35,000 people are killed by guns, a death rate much higher than that in any other industrial nations. In 1997, approximately 70 percent of the murders in the United States...

Words: 1125 View(s): 265 Comment(s): 0