Mens rea is Latin for a guilty mind. Mens rea refers to what a defendant was thinking and what they intended when the crime was committed. Mens rea helps the courts and criminal prosecution to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally committed a crime (Mens Rea, n.d.). Mens rea is a basic concept in criminal law that refers to the mental state necessary for conviction of a given offense. The offenders state of mind at the time of the crime is often an element of the crime. The idea of a guilty mind has always been central to criminal law and courts (Hood, 2010).
According to Brody and Acker, mens rea is when a person honestly did not know that their conduct was against the law and had
…show more content…
Only those breaking the law willingly are held criminally responsible for their actions (Mens Rea, n.d.). Mens rea helps prove guilt in a criminal trial. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime with a culpable state of mind (Mens Rea, n.d.). Mens rea requirement is based on the idea that the offender must possess a guilty state of mind and be aware of their misconduct; however, they do not have to know that their conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime only that the offender is conscious of the fact (Mens Rea, n.d.). Courts will usually apply the mental state to each element of the crime. Even if there is no statute mentioning a mental state, the court will usually require the government to prove the defendant possessed a guilty state of mind while committing the crime (Mens Rea, …show more content…
(2010). Criminal Law (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
Retrieved from https://www.betheluniversityonline.net/mscj/default.aspx?SectionID
=2522&tabid=149#2
England, D. (2017). Mens Rea In Criminal Cases. Retrieved from http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/ criminal-defense-case/mens-rea-its-effect-criminal-cases
Mens Rea - A Defendants Mental State. (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2017 from http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental- state.html
Hood, J. (2010). “What is Reasonable Cause to Believe?: Mens Rea Required For Conviction
Under 21 U.S.C. S 841. Pace Law Review, 30(4),
Men rea is used in determining whether an act is considered a crime, and is applied to an act if there is indication that the act was committed with intent or knowledge or a degree of recklessness. The mens era of murder is having malice intentions prior to killing someone, so the person has an intent to murder. The argument that helps support that Martineau did not have the mens rea for murder, is the fact that he did not shoot the couple, and instead it was his friend Tremblay who had fried the pellet pistol. Martineau cannot be held accountable since he had no malice intentions to kill the couple, his intentions were strictly centred with the break and enter, there is no evidence
Actus Reus of Murder When a man of sound memory over the age of discretion unlawfully kills
defenses and justification defenses. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Focusing on excuse defense, some examples are known as; age, mental disorder, automatism, mistake of fact, and mistake of law. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Mental disorder is defined as “disease of the mind.” (Lawteacher.net, 2014) This excuse supports that the defendant was not thinking normally at the time of the criminal act and therefor did not understand the act of the crime they committed. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Some examples of mental disorder are known as paranoia, schizophrenia, and depression. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Automatism is used as an excuse that the environment around the defendant caused them to commit the criminal act involuntarily. This excuse focuses on actus reus, and is hands down one of the hardest circumstances to prove in a trial. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) Mistake of Fact is used in trial to downplay or eliminate mens rea in a criminal act that has been committed. (Lawteacher.net, 2014) The source of this excuse is that the defendant is unaware of the law that they have broken that will charge them formally. A very popular use of mistake of fact is used in deadly force because it is based off of pure judgment which may vary from one person to another.
Initially, the mens rea of rape prior to the case of DPP v Morgan a defendant cannot be found liable for rape if he had the reasonable belief that consent was formed between them and the victim. Which leads to an unfairness to those victims that have been violated, and also that any person accused of rape could say they had belief in consent. Although, it was shown not to matter how unreasonable that belief may have been, in concerning the knowledge or lack of knowledge of consent. Needless to say, the current law has attempted to improve and develop upon this concept, though it may not be completely satisfactory. The 21st century initiated a new state of trying to improve the current laws and precedents on the definition of rape, the prior precedent simply not suitable for the 21st century. Various cases after Morgan , prior to the act that redrew and reformed the Mens rea of rape, came to court and illustrated how the principle of Morgan operates. In Kimber the defendant (D) was charged with sexually assaulting a mentally disordered woman. It had to be determined whether his interference was in fact an assault, even with the D’s claim of consent to his actions, though she claimed otherwise. The court came to find that the mens rea for assault is intentionally touching a Victim (V), unlawfully, i.e. without consent. However, due to the fact that the D believed the consent was there, however unreasonably, he therefore lacked the mens rea of the assault and therefore not guilty.
The “mens rea” of first degree murder is that the person, with time and intent, planned out or premeditated the murder. The “actus reas” of first degree murder is the actual act of committing the murder after planning it (Lippman, 2006).
Much of my skepticism over the insanity defense is how this act of crime has been shifted from a medical condition to coming under legal governance. The word "insane" is now a legal term. A nuerological illness described by doctors and psychiatrists to a jury may explain a person's reason and behavior. It however seldom excuses it. The most widely known rule in...
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
Kant's views on retributive justice is the punishment itself has a larger purpose. The demonstration of respect for free and equal agents. Another interpretation he had was that the law generally and particularly the criminal law, is an instrument of social power that was meant to maintain a condition of the greatest freedom possible for each individual. Retributive may be thought of as an implication of the arguments about the distribution of punishment. Justice is not getting even for crimes and offenses. It concerns the running of a society as a whole in a day-today civil matters; as well as the more dramatic criminal concerns.
Crime can be described combination between both behavior and mental factors. This will prove incredibly crucial in the definition of crime in relation to mental illness. Many of those that commit crimes are not convicted due to their illness so it is important to note, for the purpose of this analysis, that all illegal activity is considered crime, regardless of conviction (Monahan and Steadman 1983).
To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention.
Mental health and the criminal justice system have long been intertwined. Analyzing and understanding the links between these two subjects demands for a person to go in to depth in the fields of criminology, sociology, psychology, and psychiatry, because there are many points of view on whether or not a person’s criminal behavior is due to their mental health. Some believe that an unstable mental state of mind can highly influence a person’s decision of committing criminal actions. Others believe that mental health and crime are not related and that linking them together is a form of discrimination because it insinuates that those in our society that suffer from poor mental health are most likely to become a criminal due to their misunderstood behavior not being considered a normality in society. In this report I will go into detail of what mental health and mental illness is, what the differentiates a normal and a mentally unstable criminal, give examples of criminal cases where the defendant’s state of mind was brought up, introduce theories surrounding why one would commit crimes due to their mental health, and lastly I will discuss how the criminal justice system has been modified to accommodate mental health issues.
In an article titled, What is Forensic Psychology, Anyway?, John Brigham attempts to explain the beginnings of psychology and law; Forensics Psychology. Brigham explains that, “forensic psychology involves the interaction of psychology and the legal process” (Brigham 274). Brigham further highlights a historical case and the precedent established by the House of Lords through the induction of the McNaughten Rule, which translates, “To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know nature and quality of the act he was doing, or he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong” (Finkel, 1988, p21; Brigham p275). Brigham explains that the concept of introducing psychology into the field of law ...
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability from a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of said defences. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application.
There are two types of automatism: sane and insane. Sane automatism is caused by an external factor and insane automatism by an internal factor. Automatism occurs when the defendant's conscious mind is not connected with the part of mind that controls actions. Insanity can be used where a disease of mind prevented the defendant from reasoning. Automatism and insanity excuse the defendant because his state of mind was such that he cannot be regarded as responsible for his actions. Both of these defences apply to all offences. Unlike automatism and insanity, diminished responsibility may be caused by external or internal factors ...
There are other criminal activities such as rape and other form of violation of criminal law which can be associated with some or other form of mental disorder.