Presumption of Criminal Responsibility

Nabea Mbae

Professor Mbiti

Criminology 3422

26 Sept. 2012

Presuposition of Criminal Responsibility

The idea that criminals are responsible for their illegal acts has always been the idea behind the concept of legal punishment. The notion of legal punishment is premised upon the presumption that criminals commit culpable acts intentionally and voluntarily. Without this presumption, the whole concept of legal punishment would be null and void simply because there would be no ground to hold the law breakers criminally responsible for flouting the law. But, even though this notion of criminal responsibility has been embraced in all legal systems across the globe, a closer look and critical scrutiny of the idea lays bare the many misconceptions, assumptions, and flaws in the notion.

To better expose the many weaknesses in the idea that criminals should be punished simply because they commit crime intentionally and voluntarily, it is better to critically scrutinize the notion of crime responsibility vis-a-vis the two main theories of crime causation.

To begin with, let us look at the concept of criminal responsibility versus the Free will theory of crime causation. According to this theory of crime causation, human beings are free to choose their actions, and therefore, the theory assumes, any action done by any sane adult with the knowledge of the facts of the case and of the law does it intentionally and voluntarily. Consequently, the theory implies, whoever commits a crime should take responsibility for their actions. This theory therefore agrees with the notion of criminal responsibility, and it is actually the theory of crime causation that informs the idea of criminal responsibility.

The main setback of this theory is the fact that the notion of free will is a very vague notion, Odera Oruka says of the will, “ … the expression ‘ free will’ or ‘ freedom of the will’ is a very vague metaphysical notion.’’(7). Does the notion for instance denote the freedom of an individual, or freedom of a certain faculty of an individual called the will? The question of whether man is really free to do anything or whether the causes of all his action are determined in one way or another by forces beyond him is actually a very hot debate in philosophy.

To expose further the weaknesses in the idea of criminal responsibility, let us look at the idea of criminal responsibility in the light of the second theory of crime causation, i.e. the social and psychological theory of crime causation. This theory maintains that the main causes of crime are actually forces outside the person. Odera Oruka calls these forces outside the person primary causes of the crime, while