Adversarial System Vs Inquisitorial System

Mens rea, actus reus, and concurrence are all elements to a crime. These elements must be present to charge a person with a crime. The guilty mind is known as the mens rea being that a person has the intent to commit the crime with the mental capacity. The “actus reus” of an

First and foremost, the meaning of crime is any act or omission of duty resulting in harm to society that is punishable by the state. On the face of it there is no clear definition of what those acts or omisions actually are. When a crime has been committed the prosecution has the 'standard of proof' to prove 'beyond resonable doubt' to a jury that the accused had committed the 'actus rea' and/or 'mens rea'. The Actus Rea refers to the guilty act and the Mens Rea refers to the guilty mind or the planning of the crime. During strict liability offences, mens rea doesn't have to be proven only the actus rea. This is because the act is enough to charge someone as the judge sees fit.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

Within certain circumstances, liability is based on the accused 's action, which is also known as an act of omission or negative act. Regardless of the defendant 's motive, the failure to act supports a finding of criminal liability only when the s/he is under a binding legal duty, has the necessary knowledge to behave aptly and carrying out his or her responsibility is possible. Even so, there are instances when the issue of guilt results from a lack thereof. Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and decided as a matter of law by the court. With regard to any crime, all criminal elements are distinguishable and identifiable for the careful analysis of each issue. Take for example the difference between points of dispute in Proctor v. State (1918) and People v. Newton (1973) when reading Criminal Law: Cases and Methods.

Actus Reus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea: An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty. In the case of R. v. Pickton (2010), the Supreme Court of Canada convicts serial killer Robert Pickton of second degree murder and demonstrates that even if an individual was not the sole perpetrator of a crime, they are still held equally liable for the crime as long as they are an active participant or otherwise abetted the misconduct. The Supreme Courts made the correct decision in dismissing Pickton’s appeal.

Crimes all have two fundamental elements that must be present in order for an act or omission of duty to be classified as a criminal act. This involves the concept of actus reus or ‘guilty act’ in Latin and mens reus or ‘guilty mind’ in Latin. It is the role of the prosecution to prove that these elements are present to charge a person with a criminal act.

The five principles of a crime are the guilty act or actus reus, the guilty intent or mens rea, the relationship between guilty act and guilty intent, the attendant circumstances and the results. The guilty act or actus reus is the inception of a crime, “this criminal liability occurs only after a voluntary act that results in criminal harm” (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). This protects Americans from being punished for bad thoughts. The guilty intent or mens rea establishes and distinguishes between the mental state required in committing a crime. This insures that Americans are not prosecuted for innocently causing harm to another. The relationship and union between the guilty act and the guilty intent further distinguishes an act from being

To provide a balance in specific nations and considerations of cross cutting, the issues must go beyond national boundaries. The traditional contrast of adversarial versus legal systems will be to determine what impacted each system that may have on preventing wrongful convictions and whether or not the traditional difference remains viable or needs revision. The number of public policies intended to reduce the number of these convictions and compensate more fairly and just to those who are the victims of these mistrials.

The second component of a crime, mens reus, or criminal intent, was demonstrated by the following example. At one point Miller covered Cannon with a sheet and stated, “Cole, I am God, I’ve come to take your life” (2012, p.1) The third element of a crime, concurrence, was chronologically sequenced with Miller’s intent to commit the act followed by his commission of the criminal act.

All crimes consisted of an act is carried out with minds that have planned a guilty thought according to common law. Criminal intent can be the basis of fault and punishment according to intent is a solid promise of the criminal justice according to modern society. Crimes that lack the intent element are less common and are usually graded lower, as either misdemeanors or infractions. Specific intent is the intent with the highest level of culpability for crimes other than murder. Specific intent means that the defendant acts with a more sophisticated level of awareness (Connecticut Jury Instructions No. 2.3-1, 2011).When you hold someone liable for an offense without considering the carelessness of the person then we refers to it strict liability. In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. Concurrence in the law is the requirement that a guilty mental state coincide with a guilty

I really agree with everything that you said in your second paragraph. In the adversarial system, everyone is given a chance to tell their side of the story. Each party also has the ability to represent the case in the most favorable light to their side. This legal system also eliminates the bias that could happen if a judge were to play a bigger role in the case like they do in the inquisitorial system. I kind of disagree with what you said about this system not producing a fair outcome. I think it produces the fairest outcome possible in most cases. This legal system is undeniable fairer than the inquisitorial system. In child custody cases I think that they would consider what's in the best interests of the child and I do think that's the

The objective of an adversarial system and an inquisitorial system is similar, but the path to justice is very different. The terms adversarial and inquisitorial are used to describe types of justice systems in which represent common law and civil law respectively. The adversarial system is a legal system where two parties’ positions are represented before an unbiased judge or a jury who attempt to determine the truth behind the case. In an inquisitorial system, a judge contributes to the preparation of evidence along with how the different parties are to present their case at the trial. The judge plays the role of finding the truth and all the evidence that either proves the innocence or guilt of the accused. The adversarial system is clearly the more impartial and accurate way to determine the truth within a case.

A crime consists of an actus reus and a mens rea, in order to obtain a conviction of a criminal charge there must be a concurrence between the actus reus and mens rea. The elements of a criminal act

Mens Rea: The act must be accompanied by a particular state of mind. Mens rea does not equate to intentionality. For example, your neighbor’s dog barks incessantly causing her to want to cause harm to the animal. One day, she shoots the dog with the intent to kill it thus eliminating the cause of her stress which was the incessant barking. The Model Penal Code drafters made it clear that different kinds of mens rea could be attached to different components of a crime (Sampsell-Jones, 2013, p. 1458). The drafters changed the word intent and replaced it with ‘purposefully’.

The Inquisitorial and Adversarial systems are systems used to serve justice to the community. Both systems have the same jobs of determining if the accused is guilty or innocent but have different ways of concluding to the truth.