Talk:Regulatory offence

Proposed merger

Absolutely not. The use of the term infraction is entirely US-centric and, in any event, is not criminal, whereas regulatory and quasi-criminal offences are criminal and the concepts are generic rather than US-centric. David91 10:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. US-centrism aside, they are two very different classes of offence. --PullUpYourSocks 13:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these views. But, isn't that reason to merge infraction INTO regulatory offenses (keeping regulatory and eliminating infraction)? If infraction is just the US version of some (subset of?) regulatory offenses, then a re-direct to the general concept seems appropriate. Are there infractions which are not regulatory offenses? If not, why have separate articles? I assure you, by the way, that infractions are indeed viewed in the US as quasi-criminal, as they are often tried by (or appealed to) the criminal courts, not just the civil courts. It seems that this article even cites some of the discussion of the US treatment of regulatory offenses. Thesmothete 05:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously one of these pesky English language problems. In British English, an infraction is not an offence in any sense of the word whereas it seems to be a subset of quasi-criminal offences which specifically exclude imprisonment (or are the two terms merely synonymous?) in North America. I have no objection to modifying the definition of "regulatory offences" to include an alternative North American term if it is merely synonymous (as it is used on Strict liability (criminal). But if it refers to a specific subset of criminal behaviour, then I feel that it should be on a separate page so that those as knows North American-speak will know where to look, i.e. we should recognise the differential usage and North American 'pedia-users' expectations, and keep the term as the title of the page. I look to you for definitive guidance. But raise the more obvious follow-up question of whether we really need a separate "regulatory offences" when we have "strict liability (criminal)? David91 06:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What does "infraction" mean, if anything, in the UK? I would add that in the US some [infractions/violations/regulatory offenses] do have a mens rea requirement, while others are strict liability. For example, it is common in the US for a person charged with slightly exceeding the speed limit in an automobile (an offense that cannot result in incarceration) to be acquitted of the offense by demonstrating that the vehicle had a faulty speedometer – essentially arguing that the driver could not have known the true speed of the vehicle.

In UK English, an infraction is nothing more than an "infringement" or "breach" of an informal rule. It has no legal connotations of any sort. Given that an infraction in North America is not limited to strict liability, it would seem reasonable not to merge. Because regulatory and quasi-criminal almost always refer to strict liability offences in UK English, it would be slightly confusing to conflate the material when there is a differential based on sanction. As to your example, the English courts would consider the knowledge of the driver irrelevant. If the vehicle is objectively exceeding the speed limit, how or why the driver might believe this not to be the case would be ignored for liability although, it would be used for sentencing. If there was clear evidence of a speedometer malfunction and the excess over the limit was minor, there would be an absolute discharge. The greater the objective speed, the less sympathy the accused would receive because he or she ought to have recognised the excessive speed from experience. Anecdotally, I recall a case many years ago involving a great jazz musician (I think it was Johnnie Dankworth or perhaps Ronnie Scott) who escaped liability by pleading that his car engine always played C sharp when he was exactly on the speed limit. The court was probably bored and gave him the walk on the basis of humour. David91 14:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused. Are you saying that in the UK, there are *no* transgressions of the law where a) incarceration is impossible (i.e. not authorized by the legislature) AND b) where there is a mens rea requirement? In other words, in the UK, does intent *only* matter when someone could be incarcerated?Thesmothete 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I caved and went to look up these terms in Black’s Law Dictionary (eighth edition), considered the definitive unofficial reference for the meaning of legal terms in the United States (and the most often cited legal dictionary in the US). Here is what it has to offer:

• • • • infraction, n. A violation, usu. Of a rule or local ordinance and usu. Not punishable by incarceration. See VIOLATION (1).
        • • civil infraction. An act or omission that, though not a crime, is prohibited by law and is punishable. *In some states, many traffic violations are classified as civil infractions.
      • violation, n. 1. An infraction or breach of the law; a transgression. See INFRACTION. 2. The act of breaking or dishonoring the law; the contravention of a right or duty. 3. Rape; ravishment. 4. Under the Model Penal Code, a public-welfare offense. * In this sense, a violation is not a crime. See Model Penal Code Sec 1.04(5).
      • [under “offense”] public-welfare offense. A minor offense that does not involve moral delinquency and is prohibited only to secure the effective regulation of conduct in the interest of the community * An example is driving a car with one brake-light missing. – Also termed REGULATORY OFFENSE; CONTRAVENTION
      • [also under “offense”] regulatory offense. 1. A statutory crime, as opposed to a common-law crime. 2. See PUBLIC-WELFARE OFFENSE.
      • contravention 1. An act violating a legal condition or obligation; esp., an entail heir’s act that conflicts with the entail provision. 2. French law. A criminal breach of a law, treaty or agreement; a minor violation of the law. * A contravention is traditionally punishable by “peines de police”, usually a fine not exceeding 15 francs and imprisonment not exceeding three days. See PUBLIC-WELFARE OFFENSE.

[continuing from Blacks under this entry….] “we might get [terminological] help from the practice of Continental Europe in which three classes of punishable offense are maintained – crimes, delicts and contraventions. The last word is used for those minor violations of regulations, all of them necessary enough for public safety and convenience, which are so numerous and so detailed in our lives. It is a convenient term and is widely used in the United States for jus such acts, but it has not yet been made official. The Continental practice has the advantage of using the word crimes only for really serious offenses, which is in conformity with popular feeling on the subject.” [quoting Max Radin, The Law and You p 93 (1948).

[continuing the definition of “contravention”….] 3. Scots law. An action brought for breach of a peace bond. See LAWBURROWS. 4. Hist. of Scots law. An act committed in violation of a legal condition or obligation, esp. one done contrary to a deed by an heir to an entailment.

I note that *none* of these entries discuss mens rea. So, in American law, it appears that *all* of these terms (infraction, violation, welfare-offense, and regulatory offense, and possibly, contravention!) could be used in the US to describe a criminal offense that is less serious than a misdemeanor. Structurally, it seems inmportant that readers of Wikipedia be able to easily understand when they read entries under "felony" and "misdemeanor" that they understand a) that there is a third criminal offense category, no matter what it's characteristics, and b) what it is called in the various countries – and likewise when they look up these less serious offenses.

Thesmothete 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Are you saying that in the UK, there are *no* transgressions of the law where a) incarceration is impossible (i.e. not authorized by the legislature) AND b) where there is a mens rea requirement? In other words, in the UK, does intent *only* matter when someone could be incarcerated?" This is more simple than it may sound. There are offences for which the only prescribed penalty is non-custodial but, as part of the mechanism for the enforcement of non-custodial penalities, imprisonment is available as the sanction for non-payment of a fine, refusal to comply with a probation order, etc. So regardless as to the sentencing parameters specified by the legislature, an offender may end up in prison. The second question is a little more complicated. If a statute is silent on a mens rea requirement but the offence is quasi-criminal, the offence will be treated as strict liability. But if the offence is criminal either in terms of stigma or sanction, a mens rea requirement will be read in unless this would defeat the legislature's intention. It is an application of the Mischief Rule. The court must consider what mischief Parliament intended to remedy and then decide whether adding in a mens rea requirement will frustrate that intention by making it too easy for an accused to escape liability. It is significant in English terms that your U.S. definitions make no reference to mens rea because that would make all these offences strict liability.

More generally, I should alert you to the fact that England long ago abandoned the distinction between felony and misdemeanor. We deal with arrestable/non-arrestable and summary/indictable. As to the European "words" you refer to, great caution must be used because these are words in translation, i.e. for the purposes of an entry in a U.S. dictionary, the more easily comprehensible but adjacent meanings have been selected. The ideas may be the same but the words themselves are not the same in different languages. Thus, for English readers, the introduction of the idea that "infractions" are a third type of offence after felony and misdemeanor is not really acceptable because we do not use any of those words. In French "infraction" means an offence and this is modified by appropriate adjectives: régulatrice"" etc; in German, "criminal offence" is "Straftat" as opposed to Gesetzliche Beleidigung which is more regulatory. I think we are agreeing that you should cut and paste this excellent definitional material to "infraction" and limit it geographically to the U.S. (and Canada depending on what PullUpYour Socks says). It is good to find someone with your level of curiosity and commitment. I hope you will stick around. David91 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha! I think I see the problem now! What led me to regulatory offences in the first place was its inclusion in the attached template, which appears on the misdemeanor page. But when you get here to regulatory offences you have moved from US law to English law! So the answer is not to merge this article with infraction (although a cross reference seems appropriate, since apparently "regulatory offense" (with the US spelling) seems to be used by some in the US to be a synonym with "infraction" – but to clarify just what you've stated, that we're dealing with two entirely different sorts of classifications to the whole system of classifying crimes overall, depending on which country we're in AND to change the reference in the Criminal law template from "regulatory offense" to "infraction". And finally, to improve the infraction entry, which currently bites. Thesmothete 06:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To paraphrase "My Fair Lady", "By George, I think he's got it!" Cultural exchange can be quite exciting. I'm currently doing things outside criminal law for the present, but will watch with interest to see where you strike next. David91 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples

It would be helpful if the article offered examples of regulatory offences, absolute liability offences and public welfare offences under any legal system. --Rinaku (t · c) 08:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)