How do we justify imposing strict liability for criminal offenses essay

Originally published as 18 Am. For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical. For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S.

How do we justify imposing strict liability for criminal offenses essay

Apr 1st, By Bryan Cross Category: Sproul says that the 56th minute of his talk here. In doing so, God the Father punished Christ for all the sins of the elect of all time. For that reason Reformed theology is required to maintain that Christ died only for the elect. Otherwise, if Christ died for everyone, this would entail universal salvation, since it would entail that all the sins of all people, have already been punished, and therefore cannot be punished again.

In His human will He offered to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him, and thus made satisfaction for our sins.

The Father was never angry with Christ. Nor did the Father pour out His wrath on the Son.

Strict liability crimes are crimes which require no proof of mens rea in relation to one or more aspects of the actus reus. Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to health and safety. As we enter into the three most sacred days of the liturgical year, when Christ entered into His Passion and death, it may be helpful to consider the difference between the Reformed and Catholic conceptions of Christ’s Passion and Atonement. In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense.

And He freely chose to let us do all this to Him. Deeper still, even our present sins contributed to His suffering, because He, in solidarity with us, grieved over all the sins of the world, not just the sins of the elect. The fundamental difference can be depicted simply in the following drawing: A second problem with the Reformed conception is the following dilemma.

God could hate the Son only if the Son were another being, that is, if polytheism or Arianism were true. And hence that entails Nestorianism, i. He loved the divine Son but hated the human Jesus. Hence the Reformed conception conflicts with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

The Father and the Son cannot be at odds. If Christ loves men, then so does the Father. Or, if the Father has wrath for men, then so does Christ.

And, if the Father has wrath for the Son, then the Son must have no less wrath for Himself. Christ as God delivered Himself up to death by the same will and action as that by which the Father delivered Him up; but as man He gave Himself up by a will inspired of the Father. Consequently there is no contrariety in the Father delivering Him up and in Christ delivering Himself up.

The Father wholly and entirely loved His Son during the entire Passion. By one and the same divine will and action, the Father allowed the Son to be crucified and the Son allowed Himself to be crucified.

How then were our sins paid for, if Christ was not punished by the Father? Christ made atonement for the sins of all men by offering to God a sacrifice of love that was more pleasing to the Father than the combined sins of all men of all time are displeasing to Him.

Hence through the cross Christ merited grace for the salvation of all men. Those who refuse His grace do not do so because Christ did not die for them or did not win sufficient grace for them on the cross, but because of their own free choice.

A second question, from the Reformed point of view, is this: Augustine explains clearly in his reply to Faustusthat what it means that Christ was cursed is that Christ suffered death. Death is not natural. But Christ took the likeness of sinful man in that He subjected Himself to death, even death on a cross for our sake.

A third question, from the Reformed point of view, is this: How then should we understand Isaiah 53? What does it mean that: Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: But he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins:Strict liability crimes are crimes which require no proof of mens rea in relation to one or more aspects of the actus reus.

Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to health and safety. American Journal of Criminal Law; The Value of Civilian Handgun Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or a Defense Against Crime, by Don B.

Kates. Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, – June 11, ) was a United States Army veteran and security guard who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. He was convicted of 11 United States federal offenses, and was sentenced to death .

How do we justify imposing strict liability for criminal offenses essay

The following legal definitions are available for your reference. Please call the FBA office at () , if the word you are looking for is not included. Criminal Liability “In a just society criminal liability should never be imposed without some degree of blameworthiness” Offences of strict liability are those, which do not require any mens rea with regards to at least one or more of the actus rea.

In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense.

Strict liability legal definition of strict liability