Objective liability arises in cases where the accused does not need to intend to cause the harm that they end up causing. They are punished because they did not act "reasonably." Objective liability can be controversial. The most severe punishments are reserved for crimes of subjective liability (e.g. first-degree murder.) However, if the accused causes the death of a human being through criminal negligence the maximum sentence is life imprisonment - so it is possible to have very lengthy sentences for failing to act reasonably.

Do you agree with punishing people for failing to act reasonably? Perhaps you agree that people should not take risks where lives are at stake, but who gets to decide which risks are reasonable and which are not? Is "reasonable" too vague a term to use for criminal law?

REQUIRMENTS FOR POST:

You will complete bi-weekly discussion posts, which are worth a total of 15%. Each post must be between 200-300 words (with word count included), written in full sentences, and must reference course materials. Discussions are open for two weeks at a time, and no late submissions are accepted.

INCLUDE REFERENCES PLEASE.

REFERENCES:

Course Tools and Learning Materials

The textbook for this course is Criminal Law in Canada: Cases, Questions and the Code by Simon N Verdunones, 7th Ed. ($84.34 Digital Copy from the Bookstore)

Online Criminal Code of Canada https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/