📄 Past Papers & Model Answers — Ch 2

Model answers for Chapter 2, written as full exam answers: outline first, then headings and bullets with theory, case law, Pakistan examples, critical evaluation and a conclusion. All original points are kept; extra points are added for CSS marks.

📏 How Much to Write: A Rough Guide by Marks

(A practical guide, not an official FPSC marking scheme.)

🧭

How a 20-mark answer earns marks (approximate split)

• Introduction and definition: about 3
• Main body (concepts, theory, case law): about 10 to 11
• Examples, including Pakistan: about 3
• Critical evaluation: about 2
• Conclusion: about 1 to 2

📚 Index of Questions

---

1. FPSC 2016, Q9(c) (10 marks): Criminal Law (Short Note)

🗺️

OUTLINE (write first, 1 minute)

1. Definition
2. Criminal vs civil law (public wrong)
3. Features
4. Pakistan sources
5. Three functions for criminology
6. Conclusion

🎯

What the examiner wants: a tight short note, not an essay: definition, key features, Pakistan, and a link to criminology (the paper is a Criminology paper). Use bullets; about 350 words.

1.1 Definition

• Criminal law is the body of statutory and common-law rules by which the state defines acts and omissions as offences against society and prescribes punishment for them.
• (Textbook-style definition, usually credited to Sutherland and Cressey): rules promulgated by political authority, applying uniformly to all, and enforced by state punishment.

1.2 Criminal Law vs Civil Law

• Criminal law treats the wrong as a public wrong (State vs the accused), not a private dispute.
• The remedy is punishment, not just compensation.
• 🗣️ Plain English: if someone steals from you, it is the State vs the thief, not you vs the thief.

1.3 Key Features

• Public, uniform, penal and procedurally protected (due process, proof beyond reasonable doubt).
• Guided by the maxim nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law).

1.4 Pakistan's Criminal Law

• Substantive: Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
• Procedural: Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
• Evidence: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984.
• Special laws: PECA 2016 (cybercrime) and ATA 1997 (terrorism).

1.5 Three Functions Relevant to Criminology

1. Draws the legal boundary of "crime" that criminology studies; without it there would be only a criminology of deviance.
2. Embodies society's consensus on right and wrong (or, per the conflict view, the interests of dominant groups).
3. Its effectiveness is an empirical question criminology investigates: do punishments deter, rehabilitate or just warehouse?

1.6 Conclusion

• Criminal law defines the object of study; criminology evaluates and improves the law's content and enforcement.
• The two are interdependent partners in crime control.

---

2. Practice Q1 (20 marks): Explain the Essential Elements of Crime (Criminal Liability) with Examples

🗺️

OUTLINE (write first, about 3 minutes)

1. Introduction: liability needs elements together; maxims
2. Core four: actus reus, mens rea, causation, concurrence (with cases)
3. Supporting two: legality, harm
4. Which element is missing? Effect on the charge
5. Pakistan illustration
6. Critical evaluation
7. Conclusion

🎯

What the examiner wants: the core four elements (A-M-C-C) with a case for each, plus the two supporting conditions. Cases and what happens when an element is missing score the highest marks.

2.1 Introduction

• A wrongful act alone is never enough for criminal liability; several elements must be present together.
• Missing one usually reduces or removes liability.
• Foundations: nullum crimen sine lege (no crime without law) and actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (an act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty).

2.2 The Core Four Elements

1. Actus reus (the guilty act)
   • A voluntary, prohibited act or omission.
   • Voluntary: reflex or sleepwalking acts do not count.
   • Omissions count only where there is a legal duty (for example a parent not feeding a baby).
   • Thoughts alone are not punished.
2. Mens rea (the guilty mind)
   • Intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence accompanying the act.
   • Case: R v Faulkner (1877). A sailor entered the ship's hold to steal rum, lit a match, and the ship burned. His arson conviction was quashed: he intended theft, not arson.
   • Lesson: the mens rea must match the harm caused.
3. Causation (the link between act and result)
   • The act must be the factual cause ("but for") and the legal cause (no break in the chain, such as an intervening act).
   • Case: R v White (1910). A son put potassium cyanide in his mother's drink (lemonade); there was too little to kill and she died of an unrelated heart condition. Not murder, but attempted murder.
   • Lesson: act and intent are not enough for a result crime; causation must connect act to harm.
4. Concurrence (act and intent together)
   • The guilty mind and guilty act must coincide, and the harm should occur broadly as contemplated.
   • Case: Thabo Meli v R (1954, Privy Council). The accused struck the victim, believed him dead, and threw him over a cliff, where he died of exposure. The court treated it as one continuous transaction, so mind and act were held to coincide; murder.
   • Lecture slide example: R v Sherree (a teaching case; could not be verified as a reported case). Sherree planned to kill her husband with a handgun and discussed it with friends. Days later, while driving, he suddenly stepped in front of her car and died. Actus reus, mens rea and causation were present, but she did not intend to kill him that way at that time: no concurrence, so not murder.

2.3 The Two Supporting Elements

• Legality: a pre-existing law must define the act as a crime; no retrospective punishment (Pakistan: Article 12 of the Constitution).
• Harm: a legally recognised injury to a person, property or the state; attempts can still be punished even if harm did not occur (as in White).

2.4 Which Element Is Missing? What Happens

• Mens rea for arson missing (Faulkner) → no arson conviction.
• Causation missing (White) → attempted murder, not murder.
• Concurrence missing (Sherree illustration) → not murder.
• Actus reus missing (only thinking of the crime) → no crime.
• Legality missing (no law at the time) → no crime.

2.5 Pakistan Illustration

• Under the PPC, murder (qatl-i-amd, s.300 and s.302) requires intent or knowledge: a clear case of mens rea in a Pakistani statute.
• A person who kills by accident without intent or negligence lacks it, so a different, lesser charge applies.

2.6 Critical Evaluation

• Strict liability offences (certain traffic and regulatory offences) need no mens rea.
• Elements apply as a cumulative test: the prosecution must prove each beyond reasonable doubt.
• The legality principle protects individuals against retroactive punishment.
• Mens rea is the most contested element in practice.

2.7 Conclusion

• Actus reus, mens rea, causation and concurrence (supported by legality and harm) form a cumulative test.
• The three landmark cases each show how the failure of a different element changes the charge, which is why a strong answer cites them together.

---

3. Practice Q2 (10 marks): Why Does Crime Remain a Contested Rather Than a Consensual Category?

🗺️

OUTLINE (write first, 1 minute): introduction → four reasons with examples → critical point → conclusion

🎯

What the examiner wants: reasons (not just a definition), tied to theory (conflict, labelling) and an example. Four headed reasons, about 350 words.

3.1 Introduction

• Crime looks settled: "obviously, murder is a crime". On analysis, the category itself is contested.

3.2 Four Reasons

1. Relative to the penal code
   • The same act can be an offence in one state and lawful in another; there is no fixed, natural list of crimes.
   • Example: the kite-flying ban in Pakistan; pet-walking rules in some Italian cities (lecture example).
2. Heterogeneity of norms
   • Diverse ethnic, religious, regional and class groups hold different values, so there is no society-wide consensus behind most laws.
3. Conflict perspective
   • Law reflects the interests of dominant groups, not a neutral common good; which harms are criminalised depends on who has power.
4. Interactionist (labelling) view
   • No act is inherently criminal; it becomes crime when society labels it so (Becker).
   • Example: the Hudood Ordinances (1979), substantially amended by the Women Protection Act 2006, show how legal treatment of the same conduct changed.

3.3 Critical Point

• A core of offences (murder, rape, theft) is treated as crime almost everywhere, so the contest is strongest at the edges (morality, vice, politics).

3.4 Conclusion

• Crime is legally relative, normatively plural, politically shaped and socially constructed.
• This adds critical depth to any "define crime" answer.

---

4. Practice Q3 (10 marks): Distinguish between Social Harm and Legal Wrong

🗺️

OUTLINE (write first, 1 minute): definitions → comparison → when they diverge (two directions) → Pakistan → conclusion

4.1 Definitions

• Social harm: the actual injury a behaviour causes to individuals or society (physical, economic, psychological, environmental). It is the main criterion legislatures use to decide what to criminalise.
• Legal wrong: conduct prohibited and made punishable by the existing penal code. It is the formal expression of that decision.

4.2 Key Differences

• Measured by: consequences (harm) vs what the statute says (legal wrong).
• Source: social reality vs legislative decision.
• Change: harm exists before a law; legal wrongs change when parliament amends the law.

4.3 When They Overlap and Diverge

• Overlap: murder is gravely harmful and legally prohibited.
• Harmful but legal: some acts cause real harm yet are lawful because no statute exists or powerful interests resist regulation (for example harmful business practices before regulation).
• Legal wrong with little harm to others: victimless or mala prohibita offences criminalised on moral or public-order grounds.
• 🗣️ Plain English: "harm" is what hurts people; "legal wrong" is what the law says is banned; the two lists overlap but are not the same.

4.4 Pakistan Example

• Before PECA 2016, online harassment caused clear harm but was poorly covered by law; the law followed the harm.

4.5 Conclusion

• Social harm is the underlying justification for criminalisation; legal wrong is its formal expression.
• Because they do not perfectly coincide, criminal law is a value-laden, negotiated instrument, not a neutral list of everything harmful.

---

5. FPSC 2022, Q2 (20 marks): Difference between Crime, Sin, Vice and Deviance. Is Crime One of the Major Social Problems of Pakistani Society?

🗺️

OUTLINE (write first, about 3 minutes)

1. Introduction: four terms used loosely
2. Part A: each concept (meaning, judge, remedy, example) with a comparison table
3. Overlapping circles
4. Part B: is crime a major social problem? Four lines of evidence
5. Theory link and root causes
6. Critical evaluation and way forward
7. Conclusion

🎯

What the examiner wants: two parts. Part A is a distinction (clear headings plus a short table); Part B is a reasoned yes or no with evidence, theory and Pakistan. Give both parts about equal space.

5.1 Introduction

• The four terms are used interchangeably in speech but are analytically distinct.
• Their differences mark the boundary of criminal law and the limits of state power.

5.2 Part A: The Four Concepts

• Deviance (broadest)
  • Any behaviour violating social norms, whether legal or not.
  • Judge: society.
  • Remedy: social stigma.
  • Example: odd dress, breaking etiquette.
• Crime (narrowest)
  • An act or omission prohibited by state law and formally punished.
  • Judge: the State and courts.
  • Remedy: punishment.
  • Example: theft, murder.
• Sin
  • A violation of religious or moral commandments; many sins carry no legal penalty.
  • Judge: God and religious authority.
  • Remedy: repentance.
  • Example: lying, missing prayers.
• Vice
  • Self-regarding, often victimless, morally degrading behaviour; sometimes criminalised, sometimes only stigmatised.
  • Judge: the person and the community, on moral grounds.
  • Remedy: moral stigma; no formal remedy unless made a crime.
  • Example: gambling, substance abuse.

Full comparison table (copy this into the answer)

Where they overlap (shows analytical depth)

• Key rule: all crime is deviance, but not all deviance is crime.
• Gambling shows how a vice can become a crime when the state legislates against it.

5.3 The Overlapping-Circles Idea

• All crime is deviance, but not all deviance is crime.
• Picture four overlapping circles: crime is the smallest, most tightly legal circle inside the large field of deviance.
• 🗣️ Plain English: picking your nose in public is deviant; missing prayers may be a sin; gambling is a vice; robbing a shop is a crime.

5.4 Part B: Is Crime a Major Social Problem in Pakistan? Yes

• Scale and diversity: street crime, terrorism, cybercrime, GBV, organised crime and corruption; the cumulative weight makes crime systemic.
• Social costs: loss of public trust, displacement from militancy, extortion and money-laundering losses, lasting trauma.
• Social root causes: poverty, unemployment, weak education, rapid urbanisation, instability; individual moral reform cannot fix these.
• State-capacity strain: overburdened police, backlogged courts, overcrowded prisons.

5.5 Theory Link

• Merton's strain: blocked opportunity pushes people toward illegitimate means.
• Shaw and McKay: rapid urban growth weakens community control.
• Conflict view: the poor are policed more than white-collar offenders, so "crime" is partly who has power.

5.6 Critical Evaluation and Way Forward

• Public perception is partly shaped by media and moral panic, and official data undercount crime.
• Over-criminalising victimless vices can itself create problems.
• Way forward: tackle root causes (jobs, education, urban planning), modernise policing, speed up courts, rehabilitate offenders.

5.7 Conclusion

• The four categories overlap but are governed by different authorities and remedies.
• Crime in Pakistan meets every test of a social problem: widespread, structurally rooted and costly, so the response must be sociological and preventive, not merely punitive.

📊

Rough mark map (approximate, not official): introduction 2 · Part A 7 · Part B 7 · theory 2 · critical evaluation and conclusion 2.

---

6. Practice Q5 (20 marks): Discuss the Objectives and Sources of Criminal Law

🗺️

OUTLINE (write first, about 3 minutes)

1. Introduction: law pursues objectives and has sources
2. Five objectives (meaning, example, who it serves)
3. How the objectives conflict
4. Four sources (meaning, example)
5. Pakistan: colonial legacy and recent statutes
6. Critical evaluation
7. Conclusion

🎯

What the examiner wants: two parts: the why (objectives) and the where from (sources). Give each headings with examples, and show you understand the tension between objectives (retribution vs rehabilitation).

6.1 Introduction

• Criminal law is not an end in itself: it pursues social objectives and its content comes from several sources.
• Objectives explain why society punishes; sources explain where the authority to define and punish comes from.

6.2 The Five Objectives

1. Retribution
   • Meaning: punishment proportionate to the harm ("an eye for an eye"); looks at the past wrong.
   • Example: a murderer gets a heavy sentence because he deserves it.
2. Deterrence (specific and general)
   • Specific deterrence: discourage the offender.
   • General deterrence: warn society.
   • Example: huge traffic fines (as in Dubai) make everyone think twice; jailing a repeat thief stops him.
3. Incapacitation
   • Meaning: remove the ability to reoffend while confined.
   • Example: a dangerous armed robber in prison cannot rob anyone outside.
4. Rehabilitation
   • Meaning: reform the offender into a productive citizen.
   • Example: teaching a young offender a trade in prison.
5. Restoration
   • Meaning: restore the victim to their pre-harm position; the only victim-centred objective.
   • Example: a fraudster repays what he stole.

• Grouping: offender-centred (retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation) and victim-centred (restoration).

6.3 How the Objectives Conflict

• Retribution and incapacitation favour severity; rehabilitation and restoration favour reform and repair.
• Sentencing is therefore always a balance, which is why the capital-punishment, prison overcrowding and probation debates in Pakistan are so contested.

6.4 The Four Sources

1. Common law
   • Unwritten, based on judicial precedent (judge-made law).
   • Example: Faulkner and White still guide courts; in Pakistan, Supreme Court rulings on points of law bind lower courts (Article 189).
2. Constitution
   • Sets the basic powers and duties of the state and guarantees rights.
   • Example: Article 12 (no retrospective punishment); Article 25-A (free education).
3. Statutory law
   • Written laws passed by the legislature; most modern criminal law is statutory: predictable and controllable.
   • Example: PPC 1860, CrPC 1898, PECA 2016.
4. Administrative law
   • Rules made and enforced by regulatory agencies.
   • Example: State Bank KYC rules, with penalties for breach.

• Written vs unwritten: statutory, administrative and constitutional are written; common law is unwritten.

6.5 Pakistan

• The PPC (substantive) and CrPC (procedural) carry a strong British-era imprint, showing how historical sources shape the system today.
• Recent statutes such as PECA 2016 and the 2020 anti-rape amendments show statutory law responding to new problems.

6.6 Critical Evaluation

• Colonial-era codes may not fit modern problems (cyber and organised crime).
• Objectives are rarely applied in pure form; prison overcrowding undermines rehabilitation.
• Statutes can be politically driven (rushed after high-profile cases).

6.7 Conclusion

• Objectives tell us why we punish and sources tell us where the authority comes from.
• The best criminal law balances the five objectives and is written, clear and accessible (statutory) rather than scattered in precedent.

📊

Rough mark map (approximate, not official): introduction 2 · objectives 6 · conflicts 2 · sources 5 · Pakistan 2 · critical evaluation and conclusion 3.

---

🔁 How to Revise This Page

• Day 1: learn the four core elements with their cases (answer 2).
• Day 2: learn the four-term distinction (answer 5) and the objectives and sources (answer 6).
• Day 3: write answers 2 and 5 in 30 minutes each from the outlines only.
• Day 4: write answers 1, 3 and 4 in 12 minutes each (10-mark format).