Actus Rea Elements

What are the three elements of criminal liability? Well, they are actus reus, mens rea and lastly concurrence. Actus reus is latin for "the evil act", mens rea means "guilty mind," and concurrence is the requirement that both of these, actus rea and mens rea happen at the same time. These three elements are the building blocks when investigating and prosecuting a crime and those accused of committing that crime.
The evil act or actus rea, is priority. Without the act itself, there is no crime and therefore no one to stand accused of the crime. An idea thought or notion without action is not a crime; there must be an accompanied action. In order to prove guilt, you must be able to prove action and that action must be voluntary and without

reservation. The actions of a criminal are accompanied by physical movement, this movement or the results of this movement is seen by others often the victim. An act is considered voluntary or even by habit when committed by the actor, as long as other options were present to the actor. Whether it was a force of habit or a deliberate act is important when we are prosecuting degrees of offenses but the actus reus requirement is satisfied in either case. (Worrall, 2013 p. 94) In most all cases the actus reus is a voluntary action.
There may be several actions on behalf of the offender but as long as at least one is voluntary then actus reus is in effect. We can go further and define an act "as bodily movement whether voluntary, habitual or planned." These actions could include reflexes, stages of conduct during sleep or while even unconscious and furthermore "a bodily movement that would not normally be the product of an action of the person, whether awake or unconscious" ( Worrall, 2013 p. 103).
The guilty mind or Mens rea is the second must-have element in this process. An offender cannot be held criminally responsible without some degree of intention, on the offender's part, to commit the crime. Mens rea has become an acutely important piece of the criminal liability structure. Mens rea is often looked at in three different lights or evolving stages.
These stages included traditional, statutory and common mens rea. In traditional mens rea, the level of involvement or culpability of the crime is considered. In traditional mens rea, the character of the accused is often called into question. Their character could be described as bankrupt, twisted, evil, vicious or self-serving. Statutory mens rea centers on the level of intent that is required for a specific crime. The morality or character of the accused may not even come into play at this point. Whereas, in traditional mens rea, the accused had knowledge that he or she were doing wrong but made a decision to engage in the activity anyway. Having a mere understanding or knowledge that something is illegal is immaterial as far as statutory mens rea is concerned.
The intent is the most important element of common mens rea. Other elements could include malice, intent, negligence, and endangerment. A person who sets out or intends to commit a crime should be the one responsible or liable. The mere knowledge of a crime being committed is different than actually engaging in committing that crime. If an individual has knowledge that a crime is being committed and they do not bring this knowledge to light by questioning, reporting or stopping the crime they could be held liable and at the same time, the elements of mens rea in criminal liability would be completed. The actions or inactions often lead to negligence, and can be described as "A type of mens rea or criminal intent in which the defendant unconsciously creates a risk of harm and does not act like a reasonable person under the circumstances." (Worrall, 2013 p. 106) This negligence is often weighed against the facts in adjudicating the actions of others, both criminally and civilly. In weighing these actions it is important to determine if they were wanton, serious or anything other than how a reasonable person would act.
Concurrence is the requirement that both the actus reus and the mens rea worked in concert with each other.

Simply put, they occurred together. Two types of concurrence are temporal and motivational. Temporal concurrence happens when the mens rea accompanies the actus reas in time. A person wants to rob a store, they go into the store with a handgun and take money from the clerk. They intended to rob the store and the outcome is what they wanted it to be. Motivational concurrence stipulates that the mens rea be linked or associated to the actus rea it is intended to accompany. If someone intends to rob the store but then ends up committing a different act, motivational concurrence is not

present.
General and Specific Intent of Crimes
The meanings of the intent of a crime, whether it be general or specific are perplexing and often inconsistent in nature and meaning.

When the definition of a crime consists of only the description of a particular act, without reference to the intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence, we ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. This intent is deemed to be a general criminal intent. When the definition refers to defendant's intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence, the crime is deemed to be one of specific intent. The essential distinction is thus between the intent to commit an act (general intent) and the intent to produce a consequence or specific intent. ( Keiter, Mitchell, 1997). These terms describe the marriage between an offense's mental status and its physical actions. Physical actions, often in terms of conduct and circumstances and the ensuing results are the building blocks of the criminal statutes. Vehicular homicide where alcohol is a factor is a prime example. First, driving the car is the action or conduct. Being under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicate is the attended circumstance and lastly causing the death of another person is the result of the conduct. The offender's mental status is often used in defining elements of the offense. These could include purposely, recklessly or knowingly engaging in behavior that could include criminal negligence. Mental states do not exist in

isolation. They are tethered to the physical elements or actions of the crime. Criminal statues rarely speak of the mental states except as it relates to the results of outcomes.
Criminal law is often like cooking. It isn't enough recognizing a chocolate cake. To appreciate the look and taste of the cake, you must know exactly how much of each ingredient is in the cake and exactly when to add or mix these ingredients together. To leave out and ingredient or to put too much of one and less of another totally changes the taste and make-up of the cake. So, it is the same with criminal law, the elements or ingredients of the crime must include the right mix of actions, thoughts and intent. Understand these ingredients and the relationship between the mental and physical often leads us to understand the intent of the defendant.