DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIT SPECIFICATION HANDBOOK Cilex Level 3 Diploma in Law And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIT SPECIFICATION HANDBOOK Cilex Level 3 Diploma in Law And UNIT SPECIFICATION HANDBOOK CILEx Level 3 Diploma in law and Legal Skills Issued: February 2016 Introduction This handbook contains the CILEx unit specifications. These units are the building blocks of the CILEx Level 3 Diploma on Law and Legal Skills. This handbook should be read in conjunction with the CILEx Level 3 Diploma in Law and Legal Skills Qualification Handbook and Centre Guidance, which sets out the structure of the qualification. The unit handbook is divided into sections as follows: Section 1: Level 3 Units 1 Presentation of qualification units – an explanation of the unit specifications Title: each unit has its own title which seeks to succinctly convey the legal subject or skill area to be studied and assessed. Level: each unit has a level which identifies its difficulty. All the units in this Handbook are set at Level 3. Level 3 equates to GCE A Level standard of difficulty. Learning Outcomes: this column expresses the key aims of the unit. It is expressed in terms of a series of outcomes (i.e. “the learner will”) that the learner should know or understand by the end of their learning programme. Each unit includes a specific learning outcome which states that all the developed knowledge within the unit must be applied by the learner. The application is required against each of the preceding learning outcomes. CILEx assessments are designed to ensure that the learner is able to demonstrate application of each of the learning outcomes. Assessment Criteria: this column expresses the ways in which the learner should be able to demonstrate their achievement/understanding of the learning outcome (“the learner can”). In all the qualification assessments, CILEx will use these assessment criteria to try and determine the extent to which the learner has demonstrated achievement/understanding in respect of the learning outcomes. The learner and tutor will notice that the assessment criteria have been written in a certain style. For any given learning outcome, there are a number of assessment criteria for which the key verbs are: to “Describe”, “Explain”, “Identify” etc. You will note that there are also assessment criteria that begin “apply”. These are usually located at the end of a unit and require the application of the law to a given situation. This final assessment criterion marks a convention adopted in the writing of the units. At Level 3, the key skill for the learner is to understand the Law and associated Legal Practice and then, critically, demonstrate its application to a specific case or scenario. CILEx has chosen to describe this skill of application in each unit specification in this way, as a single operation within each unit. Each of the prior assessment criteria can be thought of as requiring this skill of application. 2 Knowledge, Understanding and Skills (KUS): this column attempts to describe the knowledge, understanding and skill that are relevant to the application of the assessment criteria. CILEx anticipates that tutors delivering units towards the new qualification will utilise this column in order to build their schemes of work towards the delivery of units. It should be noted that the knowledge, understanding and skill identified in this column is indicative and not intended to be exhaustive. CILEx has attempted to be as full as is possible in its knowledge, understanding and skills columns. However, the need for brevity will always mean that the content is indicative and needs careful “unpacking” by tutors and learners. Learners and tutors will note that each certain knowledge, understanding and skill sections end with a phrase such as: “Application to a scenario”. This identifies the nature of the application required in the associated assessment criterion, i.e. the learner has to be able to apply this understanding to a realistic, work-based scenario. When statutes are used as authorities, learners will be expected to know the short title, or where appropriate, the title most commonly used to describe the statute, which will invariably include the date. 3 Section 1- Level 3 Law Units Unit Number Unit Title Page numbers Unit 1 Introduction to Law and the legal System in England and Wales 6-11 Unit 2 Practical Legal Skills 12-19 Unit 3 Law of Contract 20-29 Unit 4 Tort Law 30-36 Unit 5 Law of Crime 37-42 Unit 6 Land and Property Law 43-46 4 5 Tech Level Unit Title: INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN ENGLAND AND WALES Level: Level 3 Credit Value: 10 Guided Learning 60 Hours Learning outcomes Assessment criteria Knowledge, understanding and skills The learner will: The learner can: 1. Understand the nature of law 1.1 Explain how law can be classified 1.1 Explanation of how the law impacts on aspects of our daily lives; the “pervasive” nature of the law. Definitions of and comparisons between Common Law, Equity and Legislation. 1.2 Distinguish between civil law and criminal 1.2 Definitions of and comparisons between civil disputes and law criminal cases eg: citations, burden of proof, standard of proof, objectives e.g.range of remedies and sanctions e.g punishment or damages 1.3 Distinguish between common law and 1.3 The meaning of equity, why and how it was created, its equity relationship to common law, its role in modern times, equitable maxims, equitable remedies. 2. Understand the organs of 2.1 Explain the sovereignty of parliament 2.1 Understanding the role of parliament and the monarch and government and the role of the monarch where the power lies. 2.2 Distinguish between the Houses of 2.2 Understand the differing role, functions and work of the House Commons and Lords of Commons and the House of Lords 2.3 Explain the separation of powers between: 2.3 Understanding the organs of government; the role of the three The executive institutions within the constitution and the separation of powers. The legislature The judiciary 6 2.4 Explain the role of the Lord Chancellor 2.4 Understand the nature of the work undertaken and role and the Ministry of Justice performed by the Lord Chancellor. Understand how he is appointed and an outline of the role and work undertaken by the Ministry of Justice. 3. Understand the sources of law 3.1 Explain the function of legislation 3.1 Outline of primary and secondary legislation and how a Bill becomes an Act and the different types of secondary legislation ie: Statutory Instruments, and Bye-Laws and Orders in Council, with examples 3.2 Explain what is meant by common law 3.2 Understanding that common law is made up of judicial precedent rather than statute. 3.3 Explain the concept of judicial precedent 3.3 The meaning of binding and persuasive judgments; use the court hierarchy to illustrate the binding nature of the United Kingdom Supreme Court (with reference to the 1966 Practice Direction), and the Court of Appeal (with reference to Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co 1944 and all other relevant case law and the High Court; the impact of other influential courts, to include : the European Court of Justice, The European Court of Human Rights and the Privy Council; the doctrine of stare decisis. 3.4 Explain the use of case law 3.4 Defining case law with the use of examples; definition of a judgment including Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta and how case law is used as a source 3.5 Explain the influence on UK law through 3.5 Primary and secondary sources such as •Treaties membership of the European Union •Regulations •Directives of EU law with reference to how the individual member states are subject to it. As well as knowledge of European institutions and their role in the creation and application of EU Law. 3.6 Explain the influence on UK law of the 3.6 An outline of the rights and freedoms contained in Schedule 1 European Convention on Human Rights of the ECHR; an illustration of their application in case law. Also the effects of sections 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the HRA. 7 4. Understand the principles of 4.1 Explain how statutes are interpreted with 4.1 Understand and be apply to define the difference between statutory interpretation reference to: statutory definition and common law rules statutory definitions common law rules 5. Understand the hierarchy and 5.1 Explain the function of the Supreme Court 5.1 Understand the role, function, jurisdiction and personnel of the function of the courts Supreme Court 5.2 Identify the courts exercising civil 5.2 The roles, function, jurisdiction and personnel of the County jurisdiction and any appeal function Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the United Kingdom Supreme Court; the main objectives of Civil Procedure Rules 1998 including the purpose of the overriding objective; the three track system (small claims, fast track and multi-track). An outline of the appeals route including: County Court or High Court Appeals against Judgment to Civil Division of Court of Appeal. 5.3 Describe the nature of the work undertaken 5.3 The roles, function, jurisdiction and personnel of the county in the civil courts court, high court, court of appeal and Supreme court 5.4 Explain how the courts operate with 5.4 Understand the main objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules reference to the Civil Procedure Rules including the purpose of the overriding objective and the three track system. 5.5 Identify the courts exercising criminal 5.5 Outline of the appeals route including: Magistrates to the Crown jurisdiction and any appeal function Court including appeals against conviction and to the Divisional Court of the High Court by means of case stated on a point of law and United Kingdom Supreme Court and Crown court appeals against conviction and/or sentence to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission 5.6 Describe the nature of the work 5.6 The roles, function, jurisdiction and personnel of the Magistrates undertaken in the criminal courts Court, the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal and the United Kingdom Supreme Court and Juries; explaining, with examples, summary offences, offences triable either way and offences triable only on indictment; the main objectives of Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 including the purpose of the overriding objective.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tainted by Torture Examining the Use of Torture Evidence a Report by Fair Trials and REDRESS May 2018
    Tainted by Torture Examining the Use of Torture Evidence A report by Fair Trials and REDRESS May 2018 1 Fair Trials is a global criminal justice watchdog with offices in London, Brussels and Washington, D.C., focused on improving the right to a fair trial in accordance with international standards. Fair Trials’ work is premised on the belief that fair Its work combines: (a) helping suspects to trials are one of the cornerstones of a just society: understand and exercise their rights; (b) building an they prevent lives from being ruined by miscarriages engaged and informed network of fair trial defenders of justice, and make societies safer by contributing to (including NGOs, lawyers and academics); and (c) transparent and reliable justice systems that maintain fighting the underlying causes of unfair trials through public trust. Although universally recognised in research, litigation, political advocacy and campaigns. principle, in practice the basic human right to a fair trial is being routinely abused. Contacts: Jago Russell Roseanne Burke Chief Executive Legal and Communications Assistant [email protected] [email protected] For press queries, please contact: Alex Mik Campaigns and Communications Manager [email protected] +44 (0)207 822 2370 For more information about Fair Trials: Web: www.fairtrials.net Twitter: @fairtrials 2 Tainted by Torture: Examining the Use of Torture Evidence | 2018 REDRESS is an international human rights organisation that represents victims of torture and related international crimes to obtain justice and reparation. REDRESS brings legal cases on behalf of individual Its work includes research and advocacy to identify victims of torture, and advocates for better laws to the changes in law, policy and practice that are provide effective reparations.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law and Litigation CPD Update
    prepared for Criminal Law and Litigation CPD Update Andrew Clemes CPD Training 2008 edition in Law ILEX CPD reference code: L22/P22 CPD © 2008 Copyright ILEX Tutorial College Limited All materials included in this ITC publication are copyright protected. All rights reserved. Any unauthorised reproduction or transmission of any part of this publication, whether electronically or otherwise, will constitute an infringement of copyright. No part of this publication may be lent, resold or hired out for any purpose without the prior written permission of ILEX Tutorial College Ltd. WARNING: Any person carrying out an unauthorised act in relation to this copyright work may be liable to both criminal prosecution and a civil claim for damages. This publication is intended only for the purpose of private study. Its contents were believed to be correct at the time of publication or any date stated in any preface, whichever is the earlier. This publication does not constitute any form of legal advice to any person or organisation. ILEX Tutorial College Ltd will not be liable for any loss or damage of any description caused by the reliance of any person on any part of the contents of this publication. Published in 2008 by: ILEX Tutorial College Ltd College House Manor Drive Kempston Bedford United Kingdom MK42 7AB Preface This update has been prepared by ILEX Tutorial College (ITC) to assist Fellows and Members of the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX) in meeting their continuing professional development (CPD) or lifelong learning requirements for 2008. Fellows are required to complete 16 hours of CPD in 2008 and Members eight hours of CPD.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of R. V. Stone with R. V. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism
    ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY A Comparison of R. v. Stone with R. v. Parks: Two Cases of Automatism Graham D. Glancy, MB, ChB, John M. Bradford, MB, ChB, and Larissa Fedak, BPE, MSc, LLB J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 30:541–7, 2002 Both the medical and legal professions recognize that The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis- some criminal actions take place in the absence of orders, fourth edition (DMS-IV),3 does not define consciousness and intent, thereby inferring that these automatism, although it does include several diag- actions are less culpable. However, experts enter a noses, such as delirium or parasomnias, that could be legal quagmire when medical expert evidence at- the basis for automatism. tempts to find some common meaning for the terms The seminal legal definition is that of Lord Den- “automatism” and “unconsciousness.” ning in Bratty v. A-G for Northern Ireland: 1 The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines autom- . .an act which is done by the muscles without any control by atism as “Involuntary action. (Psych) action per- the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action, or a convulsion; or an formed unconsciously or subconsciously.” This act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing, seems precise and simple until we attempt to de- such as an act done while suffering from concussion or while 4 fine unconscious or subconscious. Fenwick2 notes sleepwalking. that consciousness is layered and that these layers This was developed by Canadian courts in R. v. Ra- largely depend on subjective behavior that is ill de- bey: fined.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Profile
    Maryam Mir Call: 2011 Email: [email protected] Profile Maryam is a popular choice amongst lay and professional clients for her detailed preparation, fearless advocacy in court and personable nature. She is a compassionate listener who fights for her clients with determination and gets great results. Maryam has experience in a wide range of criminal offences. As a led junior, Maryam is instructed in cases involving homicide, firearms, terrorism and large scale fraud. As leading counsel, she has defended in cases of serious violence, conspiracy to supply firearms, politically motivated offending from terrorism to protest, financial crime, fraud and regulatory matters, sexual offences, drugs supply conspiracies and kidnapping. She worked on several high-profile terrorism cases during her secondment with Reprieve, representing leaders of political parties sanctioned as terrorists by the UN, US and UK. She was part of a team that brought the first due process challenge in the US against the inclusion of a US citizen on a “Kill List”, whilst reporting on the conflict in Syria. She has experience in cases involving legal challenges to the use of state extra-judicial killing by drones and/or mercenaries. She assists individuals challenging their listing by the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee. Maryam is experienced in advising on appeals against conviction and sentence before the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. Maryam is determined to encourage other ethnic minority women to enter and stay in the profession. She
    [Show full text]
  • INSANITY PLEA: a RETROSPECTIVE EXAMINATION of the VERDICT of "NOT GUILTY on the GROUND of INSANITY" Abstract
    Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=34dc6c62-a9eb-49cf-b24a-f906ee2528c5 INSANITY PLEA: A RETROSPECTIVE EXAMINATION OF THE VERDICT OF "NOT GUILTY ON THE GROUND OF INSANITY" by Sally Ramage Abstract This paper argues that insanity should be eliminated as a separate defence, but that the effects of mental disorder should still carry signifcant moral weight in that mental illness should be relevant in assessing culpability only as warranted by general criminal law doctrines concerning mens rea, self-defence and duress. This study was triggered by the case R v Central Criminal Court, ex parte Peter William Young1 . Peter Young had been charged with dishonestly concealing material facts contrary to s47 (1) Financial services Act 1986. The case considered Peter Young's intentions, not in relation to dishonesty, and not in relation to the purpose of the making of the representations, but as to the state of the defendant's intention in relation to the facts. Leave to Appeal to the House of Lords was refused. Literature Review on English `insanity' caselaw No analysis of a legal issue is complete without a literature review of the subject. Stephen Gilchrist wrote a short article in 19992 in which he discussed the Court of Appeal decision in R v Antoine3 in which the defence of diminished responsibility under s.2 Homicide Act 1957 applied. In the year 2000, Sean Enright4 wrote a one- page review on the power to commit defendants acquitted on the grounds of insanity to a mental institution for an unlimited period. He reviewed two cases R v Maidstone Crown Court, ex parte Harrow London Borough Council [2001 and R v Crown Court at Snaresbrook, exparte Director of the Serious Fraud Ofce [19971.
    [Show full text]
  • Cases and Materials on Criminal Law
    Cases and Materials on Criminal Law Michael T Molan Head ofthe Division ofLaw South Bank University Graeme Broadbent Senior Lecturer in Law Bournemouth University PETMAN PUBLISHING Contents Preface ix Acknowledgements x Table ofcases xi Table of Statutes xxiii 1 External elements of liability 1 Proof - Woolmington v DPP - Criminal Appeal Act 1968 - The nature of external elements - R v Deller - Larsonneur - Liability for omissions - R v Instan - R v Stone and Dobinson - Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner - R v Miller - R v Speck - Causation in law -Äv Pagett - Medical treatment - R v Sw/YA - R v Cheshire - The victim's reaction as a «ovtt.j öcto interveniens — Rv Blaue - R v Williams 2 Fault 21 Intention -Äv Hancock and Shankland - R v Nedrick - Criminal Justice Act 1967 s.8 - Recklessness -fiv Cunningham - R v Caldwell - R v Lawrence - Elliott \ C -R\ Reid -Rv Satnam; R v Kevra/ - Coincidence of acft« re«i and /nens rea - Thabo Meli v R - Transferred malice -Rv Pembliton -Rv Latimer 3 Liability without fault 56 Cundy v Le Cocq - Sherras v De Rutzen - SWef v Parsley - L/OT CA/« /4/£ v R - Gammon Ltd v Attomey-General for Hong Kong - Pharmaceutical Society ofGreat Britain v Storkwain 4 Factors affecting fault 74 Mistake - Mistake of fact negativing fault -Rv Tolson - DPP v Morgan - Mistake as to an excuse or justification - R v Kimber - R v Williams (Gladstone) - Beckford v R - Intoxication - DPP v Majewski - Rv Caldwell - Rv Hardie - R v Woods - R v O'Grady - Mental Disorder - M'Naghten's Case -Rv Kemp - Rv Sullivan - R v Hennessy
    [Show full text]
  • WJEC/Eduqas a Level Law Book 2 Answers
    WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 2 answers Chapter 1: The law of contract Activity 1.1 Legal authority Legal authority Rule s9 Services must be provided at a reasonable price. s10 An unfair term is not binding on the consumer. The consumer’s legal right to reject goods that are of unsatisfactory s11 quality. s20 Goods must be fi t for purpose. s23 Goods must be of satisfactory quality. If a service does not satisfy criteria, trader should redo the inadequate s49 element at no extra cost. Where repeat performance of the service is not possible, the consumer s50 can obtain a price reduction. s51 Goods must be as described. Retailer must be given the opportunity to repair or replace defective goods s52 outside the 30 days of purchase. s55 Services must be undertaken with reasonable care and skill. Any information given to the consumer before the service is provided is s56 binding. s62 Services must be provided within a reasonable time. Activity 1.2 Implied terms These are mini scenarios for which the students can use the IDA structure to construct mini answers using the relevant statute provisions. 1 WJEC/Eduqas A Level Law Book 1 answers Activity 1.3 Application question (taken from WJEC/Eduqas SAMs material) 1. The question is taken from WJEC/Eduqas sample assessment material. Refer to https://www.eduqas.co.uk/qualifi cations/law/A-level-Law-SAMs.pdf, page 35, for indicative content of a response. 2. Use the approach outlined in the SAM that covers Q1 to respond. Discus it with a classmate if you want to.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 SAMPLE of CASES R V Burgess [2014] QCA
    SAMPLE OF CASES R v Burgess [2014] QCA 290 - CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE – INDIVIDUAL JURORS – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of a number of sexual offences – where, on the third day of the trial, there was an irregular incident involving a juror, the appellant and the appellant’s companion – where that juror was discharged but a juror to whom the incident was relayed was not discharged – whether the circumstances warranted the discharge of the second juror – whether a fair-minded and informed member of the public would have a reasonable apprehension of a lack of impartiality on the part of the second juror – whether the trial judge had taken relevant considerations into account before deciding to proceed with 11 jurors – Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s. 33, s. 56, s. 57 - Webb v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 41, followed; Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99, applied. Burke v State of Queensland & Ors [2014] QCA 200 – TORTS – TRESPASS – TRESPASS TO THE PERSON – ACTION FOR DAMAGES – where the intoxicated applicant was arrested but ran away from police – where the applicant was re- apprehended through force – where the applicant sustained injuries – whether the first respondent assaulted the applicant TORTS – MALICIOUS PROCEDURE & FALSE IMPRISONMENT – FALSE IMPRISONMENT – JUSTIFICATION AND OTHER MATTERS – ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS – where the applicant served court documents on the first respondent at a police station – where the applicant was wanted for further questioning
    [Show full text]
  • ACCOMPLICES, PRINCIPALS and CAUSATION by DAVID LANHAM*
    ACCOMPLICES, PRINCIPALS AND CAUSATION By DAVID LANHAM* [In this article Professor Lanham discusses the conflicting grounds of accomplice liability. There are the accessory approach and the causation approach. He also argues that there is a point when an accessory becomes so dominant a contributor to the crime in question that he must be considered as a principal.] Orthodox theory has it that if A instigates B to commit an offence, B is the principal offender and A is merely a secondary party. The terminology to describe the two parties is varied and confusing. B may be called the perpetrator, principal, principal offender, actual offender, principal in the first degree or person actually committing the offence. A may be called an accessory, accomplice (though this term is also used to cover perpetrators) an accessory before the fact (if absent when a felony is committed) principal in the second degree (if present when a felony is committed) a principal, in cases of treason, misdemeanours, summary offences or, where the old terminology based on felonies has been abolished, all crimes, or simply a party. The distinction between principals and accessories in felonies gave rise to procedural problems one of which was that the accessory could not be convicted before the principal was convicted.1 These difficulties have been overcome by statutory provisions which deem accessories to be principals or simply abolish the accessorial terminology altogether. But whatever the instigator is called he or she remains, as a matter of substantive law, a secondary party.2 The main manifestation of this secondary status is that the instigator's liability is, according to the dominant view, dependent on the liability of the perpetrator.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Comments Commentaires D'arrêt CRIMINAL LAW-DEFENCES
    Case Comments Commentaires d'arrêt CRIMINAL LAW-DEFENCES-AUTOMATISM- ACCUSED KILLING WHILE SLEEPWALKING ACQUITTAL OR NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY: R. v. Parks. Isabel Grant* and Laura Spitz** Background to the Case In R. v. Parks' the Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity to clarify the test for distinguishing between insane and non-insane automatism and to locate sleep-walking, or somnambulism, within this dichotomy. Its judgments accomplished neither purpose satisfactorily and thus the case is more striking for its unusual facts than for its advancement of the law. The judgment of the Chief Justice, in particular, reads more like a trial decision than that of an appellate tribunal and generates more questions than answers about the defences. Mr. Parks was charged with the murder of his mother-in-law and the attempted murder of his father-in-law. He drove twenty-three kilometres across a busy Toronto highway, while sleep-walking, to the home of his in-laws. Once at the house, Parks went upstairs and attacked his in-laws. After the assault, he drove himself to the police station and turned himself in saying: "Oh my God, I just killed someone." The accused had been facing serious financial problems and had stolen $30,000 from his employer, which had resulted in his dismissal. Despite these crises he had apparently been getting on well with his in-laws? Several of his family members had suffered from sleep problems including sleep-walking, adult enuresis, nightmares and sleep-talking. * Isabel Grant, Associate Professor, of the Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Responsibility Between Neuroscience and Criminal Law. the Control Component of Criminal Liability Sofia Bonicalzi(Α) & Patrick Haggard(Β),(Γ)
    RIVISTA INTERNAZIONALE DI FILOSOFIA E PSICOLOGIA ISSN 2039-4667; E-ISSN 2239-2629 DOI: 10.4453/rifp.2019.0010 Vol. 10 (2019), n. 2, pp. 103-119 STUDI Responsibility Between Neuroscience and Criminal Law. The Control Component of Criminal Liability Sofia Bonicalzi(α) & Patrick Haggard(β),(γ) Ricevuto: 20 aprile 2019; accettato: 7 maggio 2019 █ Abstract The paper discusses the contribution that the neuroscience of action can offer to the legal un- derstanding of action control and responsibility in the case of adult individuals. In particular, we address the issues that follow. What are the cognitive capacities that agents must display in order to be held liable to punishment in criminal law? Is the legal model of liability to punishment compatible with a scientifical- ly informed understanding of voluntary behaviour? To what extent should the law take into account peo- ple’s subjective feelings about their own actions? As a result of our analyses, we indicate some areas where the contribution of the neuroscience of action to the law is potentially relevant. We focus on the subjec- tivity mechanisms of action control, specifically the requirement that the agent must violate the law vol- untarily in order to be held responsible, and on the factors that modulate the wrongdoer’s experience of agency. Overall, we advocate more cross-disciplinary work, aimed to bridge the gap between conceptual boundaries, on the theme of responsibility for actions. KEYWORDS: Responsibility; Neurolaw; Sense of Agency; Criminal Law; Criminal Liability █ Riassunto La responsabilità tra neuroscienza e diritto penale. La componente di controllo dell’imputabilità penale – L’articolo discute il contributo che la neuroscienza dell’azione può offrire ai temi del controllo dell’azione e della responsabilità in ambito legale, nel caso degli individui adulti.
    [Show full text]
  • 37631NCJRS.Pdf
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. , <-"c. .., "; '-I\,~' , : 11 . This ,tudv p,lpc'r, pr t'P,H t'i.j by til,· fI, ,dt'flCt' , Pr')lt'ct ~'l trw LdW f~t'tL': i'1l:"nH11ISSI,'!1 •.>t l~,H1,1lL1. I'; C!fCUi,ltt'd t,,, l',lrnmt'nt df1d (1'(,(ISm Tht' prl'!~hJS~lts lh) l'tOt ~t'pll'St.'tlt ftlt' \,It~\.\'~ ,1~ the C.' [1HI11"I,)I1. 1..- ." This mlcroflr.he rtas produced from documents rec(iJlvau for ., [. IncluSion In the MCJRS data base. Since iiCJRS cannot exercise :' centro! over ~!l!~ physical condition of the documonts submitted, j;:. -~: _ ,c,, the nillvlGuai hame quality i'Jill vary The resolution chart on tlll ~ .~ f a!l1f~ m" V be use rl toe valli ate the dI.l cum en t Qua lit Y. ,'":.'.•.... do :. .,~ •. r'., -~~TI ~'~ ';' [1 J III I 1.0 I !EV~DENCf. \ j \ ! I 5. COMIP!ElL~\B~l~TV or THE t~CCUS!ED 1111.1 18 I AND THE AIDM~SS~!8~l~TV or 11 111111. 25 11111~' .~_ H~S STATlEWHENTS r ,- ~, '," . ';""" ...... ,. ~,.. ,.- f,ilCfoiilming procedures used to create tilis fiche comply ('lith W) Tilt' L,m: Ht'hlrm C,)11Ifl1IS$IOn l1t l:,ll1add \'vdl\1t­ the standards set forth in 41CFn 101·11.504 ~lf dtdul !(lr c, 'r1H11l'nts IwfQt t' 1\1.3\ 30, 107 ~~. f ! r:?\ ~~..... \~;.j" Ali COli e~p()!1denct' Shl1llid bt' dddr t'ss,'d t". \;~.'.~""'.>' Mr. Jean Cott:" SL'CretdlV Points of vieH"J or opinions stated in this dOC[jliHlIit (Jf8 L1W Rt'fLlf m CornrnlssiLl!l of C,lIldd,l, '."""".'.""'~"'."" 130 Albp! t Str \'l't.
    [Show full text]