Both “male in se” and “mala prohibita” are legal terms associated with classification on crime. ‘Mala prohibita’ crimes are not inherently evil as they are not necessarily wrong. These crimes are illegal only because it is prohibited by the laws of a society. ‘Mala prohibita’ crimes usually incur less serious punishment because they are criminalized acts by statute to help regulate general behaviors in a society so are often considered “victimless”. Examples of “mala prohibita” crimes include, jaywalking, parking violations and gambling. ‘Mala in se’ crimes are considered wrong in and of themselves and therefore do not require justification to prove their wrongness. These crimes tend to have a much higher punishment as they are not only …show more content…
However, in our time more weight is being placed on the defendant's history, intention, whether the crime was misdemeanor or felony and to what degree, and so on. This on causing a blur between the distinctive line that once separated the two crimes. Actus reus can be best described as a criminal act. The term is a Latin phrase meaning "the guilty act." By definition, Actus Reus” means that there must be a physical action or movement. Therefore, it is the physical act that makes a person liable for a crime. This physical act is required for the commission of a crime, because it is not possible to find a person guilty of thinking criminal thoughts or wishing for a crime to take place. Mens rea is Latin for a guilty mind, the specific mental state of the person at the time of the crime. Therefore, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the Mens rea, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element. This begins to stem the belief that an act alone cannot create criminal liability unless it is also accompanied by a guilty state of mind. For example, the act of murder requires the physical action of killing someone but is also accompanied with a malicious mind during the
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
The term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
Convictions. Now Juries Expect the Same Thing – and That's a Big Problem.” U.S. News
Only an act that is defined by the validly passed laws of the nation state in which it occurred so that punishment should follow from the behaviour
Actus reus refers to a criminal act that occurs or happens as a result of voluntary bodily movement (Dressler, 2015). In other words, it is a physical activity that harms an individual, or damage properties. Every physical activity such as murder to the destruction of public properties qualifies to be an actus reus. It consists of all the elements of a crime other than the state of mind of the offender. Apparently, it may consist of conduct, the state of affairs, result, or an omission.
Actus Reus of Murder When a man of sound memory over the age of discretion unlawfully kills
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).
The Mens Rea of a crime refers to the mental element or the state of
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.
For most of the crimes we must consider two elements of crime which are the Mens rea and the Actus reus. To establish criminal behaviour, the Actus reus and the Mens rea must occur at the same time. To explain this further an example of this is, imagine that person A shoots person B, where person A is intending to kill person B but completely misses. However, later person A accidentally runs over person B, where person B’s life is taken away. Person A is not found guilty of person B’s death.
When defining the difference between actus reus and mens rea you must first understand what each term means before determining the difference, the difference between the two are significant when it is being used in a court case. Actus reus simply means the guilty act in Latin to where mens rea is the intent to commit a crime. There are crimes in which are intended to cause harm to others intentionally and then there are some that are unintentionally. They are significant within criminal law because prosecutors need to be able to prove that a crime was committed with intent before they can use mens rea.
The actus reus of the offence usually makes it clear whether the offence is capable of being committed by omission. For example, in burglary the accused must “enter” a building as a trespasser, thus this requires a positive act. Most of the leading cases relate to offences of murder and manslaughter buy offences such as arson, assault, battery and some statutory offences such as failing to provide a specimen of breath, can all be committed by omission[ J Clough & others, Nutshell Criminal Law (9th edn Sweet & Maxwell, London 2011) 3
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.
The principles of necessity and compulsion are often used as a defense for murder or other crimes. It is, however, apparent that the application of these principles within the laws and the application of South Africa and England differ as the underlying principles remain the same. I will be analyzing cases from both countries that have used necessity and compulsion as a defence and make recommendations of how this principle is used as an excuse to criminal liability in certain circumstances with regards to the laws of each country.