Assess The Difference Between Actus Rea And Mens Reus

Actus reus and mens rea are two general features that characterize a crime. Actus Reus is always required when considering if a criminal act has been committed. Mens rea is generally required yet in certain circumstances, cases may proceed without it.

Actus Reus is simply a guilty act. As Benton describes it in her text Introduction to the Law for Paralegals, actus reus requires “…that the defendant did the prohibited act or failed to act when law required…”. This is to say that in court, the prosecutions’ purpose is to determine that a crime was committed by the defendant and was either an unlawful action taken or the absence of action taken that caused the crime in question. As Schmalleger points out, simply admitting to a crime does not equal actus reus, such as the example of admitting to underage drinking. Admitting to underage drinking is fundamentally different than being caught in the act of underage drinking.

The aforementioned lack of action can lead to actus reus; if you stop feeding your elderly grandmother who is under your care

According to Stefanie Bock who wrote The Prerequisite of Personal Guilt and the Duty to Know the Law in the Light of Article 32 ICC Statute, mens era is the act of intent with knowledge and understanding of the consequences of said intent. Mens rea is harder to prove and a cornerstone to a successful case in trial. The prosecution must find and prove at least minimum mens rea was acted upon with intent. The importance of mens rea is shown in the case of George Zimmerma after he shot teenager Trayvon Martin, killing him. The prosecution needed to prove that Zimmerman shot with criminal intent, or mens rea, at Martin. The shooting itself was never in question, it was the intention that left the jury in contention. In the end, the prosecution failed to prove means rea, leading to an acquittal (Criminal Defense