Talk:Motivation and emotion/Book/2021/Criminal culpability and motivation

Comments
Hi, your chapter looks great so far! I just wanted to inform you of some minor changes/suggestions. Firstly, I think your title has a typo in it (crime not criminal). But also, I think that an additional motive that would be beneficial to explore is the economic/social status reasoning to commit crimes. This area has a lot of depth and would allow you to discuss increased crime rates amongst low socio-economic areas as well as criminal behaviour by those who may not show the typical 'criminal traits' e.g., stealing because they can't afford food. I have linked a few resources that may be of interest (these are available using your UC log in); - https://www.jstor.org/stable/3487133 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578311 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2083937 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/23636631 - Australia study

Hi great work so far! You have done an amazing job and your research is very impressive. I really like how you included case studies when discussing motives and particular behaviours. I do think that it could be useful to include an end of chapter quiz or even a diagram of some of the psychological theories you used. For example, with the psychodynamic theory by Freud, having the iceberg image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diagram_of_Freud%27s_Psychoanalytic_Theory_of_Personality_.webp, such an image could be useful to break up some of your text :) Hopefully this helps, but best of luck with your research! U3204463, --U3204463 (discuss • contribs) 05:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi there,

Great job on your book chapter so far! Having completed the Criminal Law unit at UC, I do have some pointers that might be helpful as you continue to look at criminal culpability and motivation. When talking about actus reus, it is important to recognise that this is dependant on the criminal offence and may include an act, an omission to act or simply a status (for example being part of a terrorist organisation). On the other hand, mens rea refers to the culpable state of mind, and may include intent, but also knowledge and recklessness. This is a good outline of mens rea: https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-freedoms-encroachments-by-commonwealth-laws-ip-46/12-strict-and-absolute-liability/a-common-law-principle-2/. Doli incapax is a presumption that children are incapapble of wrongdoing under criminal law. The age of criminal responsibility (where it is possible to be convicted of a criminal offence) depends on the jurisdiction, but there is debate in the ACT currently to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years to 14 years ( https://hdp-au-prod-app-act-yoursay-files.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/4516/2433/2390/Discussion_Paper_-_FINAL.pdf ). Note that this is different to doli incapax, which may be rebutted by the prosecution in certain situations. Also, it might be good to consider mental impairment which I have included here (not just as a mitigating factor in sentencing): https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/files/documents/2018-08/factsheet-9-mental-illness-and-criminal-law.pdf. Aggravating and mitigating factors are taken into account in sentencing (so after a person has entered a plea or been found guilty). Broadly, the process in the court would look like: offence -> charged by prosecution -> enter plea OR trial -> finding of guilt (guilty or not guilty) -> if guilty, the court sentences the person (and would take into account aggravating or mitigating factors here).

Hope that helps :)

U3202904 (discuss • contribs) 23:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 08:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

-- Jtneill - Talk - c 22:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)