The Controversial Role Of Recklessness In Criminal Law

Since 1952 the word reckless has been a debated term, especially applying to criminal law, it plays a crucial role in determining criminal liability. The elements of a crime, the actus reus of a crime is one such result of a human conduct as the law seeks to prevent and also extends to omissions as well as positives acts. While the other element mens rea, refers to a person's awareness of the fact that their conduct is criminal and has three levels which are intention, recklessness and negligence. With the exception of strict liability offences most crimes require proof of mens rea. Recklessness has evolved from being a constituted offense against property or involving significant danger to another person. Subjective and objective are the
two tests used to determine which should apply to recklessness. Subjective is defined as the defendant knows the risk, is willing to take it and takes it deliberately. While on the other hand the objective test definition is the risk must be obvious to the reasonable man, in that any reasonable man would have realised it if he had thought about it. The objective of this research is to discuss the statement “Caldwell objective recklessness is dead.”