Evaluate the legal impact on the mens rea requirement for joint enterprise liability arising from the decision in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8. Do you think the law in this area is now satisfactory?This essay question requires you to: concisely explain the mens rea requirement for complicity in a criminal offence and the legal implications of the Jogee case analyse whether the Jogee case modifies the mens rea requirement for joint enterprise liability, and if so, how it does this evaluate the merits of the relevant law following Jogee in relation to the pre-existing legal position throughout the entire essay, develop a reasoned argument about whether you think the mens rea requirement for joint enterprise liability is now satisfactory.
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Essay: The Impact of R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 on the Mens Rea Requirement for Joint Enterprise Liability
Introduction
In criminal law, the concept of mens rea, or guilty mind, is crucial in determining a person’s criminal liability. Joint enterprise liability involves holding individuals accountable for a crime committed by another person. The decision in R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8 significantly impacted the mens rea requirement for joint enterprise liability and raised questions about the fairness and clarity of the law in this area.
Mens Rea Requirement for Complicity
Before delving into the implications of the Jogee case, it is essential to understand the mens rea requirement for complicity in a criminal offense. Traditionally, joint enterprise liability was based on the principle of foresight; if an individual foresaw that a crime might be committed by another person but still participated in the joint enterprise, they could be held liable as a secondary party.
Legal Implications of R v Jogee
The Jogee case challenged this traditional approach by clarifying that foresight alone was not sufficient to establish culpability. The Supreme Court held that the mens rea requirement for complicity should involve a substantial contribution to the crime, moving away from mere foresight. This decision aimed to ensure that individuals were not unfairly convicted based solely on their association with the perpetrator.
Modification of Mens Rea Requirement
The Jogee case modified the mens rea requirement for joint enterprise liability by emphasizing the need for active participation or encouragement in the commission of the crime. This shift from mere foresight to requiring a significant contribution altered the way courts assess complicity in criminal offenses. It raised the bar for establishing guilt in joint enterprise cases and highlighted the importance of individual culpability.
Evaluation of Post-Jogee Legal Position
Following the Jogee decision, there have been debates about whether the law in this area is now satisfactory. Some argue that the clarification provided by the Supreme Court ensures a fairer and more just approach to joint enterprise liability. By focusing on active participation rather than mere presence, the law seeks to differentiate between different levels of culpability among secondary parties.
Is the Mens Rea Requirement Satisfactory?
Despite the efforts to improve clarity and fairness in joint enterprise cases, there are lingering concerns about the application of the modified mens rea requirement. Critics suggest that the new standard may still lead to ambiguities and inconsistencies in how complicity is determined. The subjective nature of assessing a “substantial contribution” could introduce uncertainties in legal proceedings and potentially result in unjust outcomes.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Jogee case has undoubtedly reshaped the mens rea requirement for joint enterprise liability by emphasizing active participation in criminal offenses. While this shift aims to enhance accountability and fairness, there are ongoing debates about whether the law in this area is now satisfactory. Balancing clarity with flexibility in assessing complicity remains a challenge, and further refinements may be necessary to ensure just outcomes in joint enterprise cases. Ultimately, achieving a delicate balance between accountability and legal certainty will be crucial in evaluating the effectiveness of the current mens rea requirement for joint enterprise liability.
