Personal Criminal Culpability For our second lesson in Critical Thinking I am choosing to explore Option # 2: different factors that impact a person’s criminal culpability. When one discusses the different factors that impact a person’s criminal culpability, a review of how responsible the offender is for the crime committed and the four levels of mens rea or criminal intent listed in order of severity or culpability (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently). The investigator first needs to first understand the “Model Penal Code Standard” that “actus reas is required to exist in unison with criminal intent” and mens rea is to have a knowledge or thoughts to intentionally, deliberately, and purposefully act to convey or cause injury …show more content…
While Bill junior’s act of pushing his father could be argued within the boundaries of Cause in Fact, (the “But for”), there was an unforeseeable event in the rug actually causing his father to fall into the coffee table. Thus, in scenario one there was a coincidental intervening act, the rug, which actually caused the fall and death of Bill …show more content…
Silly Questions and Their Answers in Police-Subject Interrogations” ( ) it is stated on page 93 “The issue of ‘state of mind’ at the time of the action, in law called mens rea (guilty mind), is critical to the crime category with which S, (the perpetrator), will ultimately be charged: was it, in escalating degrees of intentionality, accidental, reckless, intentional, or planned? If P, (the interrogator), establishes some such degree of intentionality on S’s part, then the offence becomes a more serious category of crime, and this information must be articulated explicitly ‘for the record’. Upon further examination of the perpetrator of the crime and his/her criminal intent and their specific positive or negative emotions that may have influenced the actions through social or peer judgments. It is imperative that a complete and unbiased “studies on the law-emotional interface” (2011. Pg. 3) will help determine which of the two intervening acts to determine the chain of causation
Causation is the cause of death, and in criminal law it is the connecting of conduct and physiological behaviour with a resulting effect, typically a serious injury or death. The analysis of the actus rea and mens read of the accused will assist the investigators in pinpointing the causation of the murder. In criminal law it is absolutely necessary to prove causation in order to convict an individual for first degree murder.
There is the question of what acts are voluntary. The Model Penal Code defines an “act” as a “bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary” (Section 1.13 (2).) Even with this definition it makes distinguishing between whether an act “involuntary” or “voluntary” difficult in certain cases. The rationale of the voluntary act requirement and the reason for excluding criminal liability in the absence of voluntary action is explained in the case book as it being fundamental that a civilized society does not punish for thoughts alone. It continues to say that people whose involuntary move...
In chapter 3 of the Crime and Justice in America textbook, Joycelyn Pollock provides information about the three theories of crime. These theories help us to explain the motivation behind different criminal acts. The reasons why one would commit a crime may be due to biological, psychological, or sociological influences. This paper will explore the high profile cases of The State vs. Casey Anthony and The United States vs. Enron, and link them to one the theories of crime causation detailed by Pollock in chapter 3. We will explore the evidence of what motivated these people to commit the crimes they were charged with.
First, the first element of a crime is Mens rea. “The mental element is known as the mens rea, or mental state, of the defendant.” (Hames & Ekern, 2009) The prosecution lawyers try to prove if the defendant has knowledge of the crime. What was the defendant’s mental state? Were they aware of the effect of the crime, did the defendant plan the crime, o...
Firstly, “criminal behavior must be learned through interaction with other persons in the process of communication” (Gongenvare & Dotter, 2007, 384). Furthermore, the idea of communication is broken down into two forms, verbal and gestures. Sutherland indicates that through gestures the conversation elicits a stimuli that allows for response from each individual, by analyzing these responses can indicate attitudes towards the topic or object.
This paper explores three criminological theories as to why Jeffrey Dahmer committed his crimes. Although these approaches vary in terms of defining the cause of crime, one thing is certain, there is no single cause of crime; the crime is rooted in a diversity of causes and takes a variety of forms depending on the situation in which the crimes occur. However, the published articles vary in their definitions and uses of Criminological Theory. Rawlins (2005) suggest that the criminal phenomenon is too complex to be explained by a single theory. Other theories suggest differently and; therefore, have varying explanations. This paper examines the Psychological, Biochemical, and Social Process theories to slightly explain Jeffrey Dahmer’s actions.
Tallichet, S, and C. Hensley. (2004). Exploring the Link between Rec. Criminal Justice Review, 29 (2), pp. 304-316.
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).
Wilson, James and Herrnstein, Richard. "Crime & Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime" New York: Free Press, 1998.
Criminal justice as a socially constructed theoretical perspective by Kraska (2004) emphasizes the idea of emotions influencing criminal justice. In order to understand law-breaking we have to look at the process of how we defined behaviors as illegal as well as looking at the reactions of the criminal justice system. “It is not the quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender” (Kraska, 2004) There are criminal justice actors that influence the definitions of criminal behavior which are police portraying the idea of the impossible mandate of curing crime, criminal statistics, and organizations working to maintain justice.
The elements that is necessary under the Model Penal Code to establish the commission of a crime consists of mens reas and actus reus. Mens reas is the required mental state necessary to establish a crime; whereas actus reus is any act that is illegal or the failure to that results in a crime (Wallace & Roberson, 2008). Therefore, an alleged criminal cannot be found guilty of a crime if the prosecutor cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender acted in an illegal manner and had the mental state required necessary in establishing a crime. The establishment of actus reus was created in order to prevent people from being punished for their thoughts. A person is only culpable when intent can be proven and then acted on.
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.
Tolbert, Tracy. (2004). Criminal Justice 404: Crime Theory, Causation, and Control Lecture Notes. California State
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 for a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of such defenses. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime.
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).