Analysis Of Mens Rea And Actus Reus

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

Actus Reus - "the criminal act" [Latin, Guilty act.] is an element of criminal responsibility, that a person acts wrongful or includes the physical components of a crime. Criminal statutes generally need proofs of both actus reus and mens rea on the portion of a defendant in command to establish criminal obligation.

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.

To convict an individual of a criminal offence, the prosecution must be able to prove to the Jury or Magistrate that the individual is criminally responsible. This is achieved by proving the Mens Rea (guilty mind) and Actus Reus (guilty act) of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

When a law enforcement officer or other public employee is accused of potentially criminal conduct, they may face three different kinds of interviews or interrogations. If an officer is interviewed as a criminal suspect, they have the absolute right to decline to answer any questions, or to insist that they have a lawyer of their choosing to attend the interview. The first is type is during a criminal investigation; the second is during a disciplinary investigation and finally during the course of civil litigation where there has been damages. During a criminal interview, there is no professional, ethical or moral duty to participate especially without the assistance of an attorney to represent the officer under investigation. It has come to a surprise that many experienced officers will waive their right to silence and give the investigators an audio recorded statement. Some of the inexperienced criminals do not make incriminating statements. The motive for cooperation is to avoid unfavorable publicity.

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.

Knowing ones rights when being arrested is very important, it is the best way to avoid self incrimination. The government has done a good job in assuring that all individuals who are arrested are read their Miranda rights and made fully aware of the rights that they are guaranteed as well as providing fair trial to all who are accused of a crime based on the rule set by the presumption of innocence: “innocent until proven guilty”. The purpose of this paper is to describe how the Miranda rights were

You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during police questioning, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the state. These words have preceded every arrest since Miranda v. Arizona 1966, informing every detained person of his rights before any type of formal police questioning begins. This issue has been a hot topic for decades causing arguments over whether or not the Miranda Warnings should or should not continue to be part of police practices, and judicial procedures. In this paper, the author intends to explore many aspects of the Miranda

In this essay, I will describe the elements of a criminal act, address the law of factual impossibility, the law of legal impossibility, and distinguish whether the alleged crime in the scenario is a complete but imperfect attempt or an incomplete attempt. I will address the ethical or moralistic concerns associated with allowing a criminal defendant to avoid criminal responsibility by successfully asserting a legal defense such as impossibility. The court was clearly wrong to dismiss the charge against Jack of attempted murder of Bert.

Actus Reus is the physical act of the crime why the defendant did what they did? Referring back to murder the defendant could have unlawfully kill someone if they had a bad intention but if the defendant did it for self defence then it is not classed as unlawful. Omissions as Actus Reus is killing the victim e.g. stabbing them, running them over, shooting them etc. the natural rule of omission cant actually make the defendant guilty of the act he has committed. This was told by Stephen J, a 19th century judge in the following way and I quote “A sees B drowning and is able t save him by holding out his hand. An abstains from doing so in order that B may be drowned. A has committed no offence” an omission is only agreeable for the Actus Reus, where there is a duty to act. There are four important positions in which such duty can exist.

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’.

Actus reus is the behavior that the criminal law intends to punish. It is either an act of commission such as stealing, or an act of omission such as failing to file a tax return. Whether a person commits an act of commission or an act of omission, they are still doing something that is against the law. Mens rea is only punishable for voluntarily actions such as holding a gun and choosing to pull the trigger. When one

Following such protocol could help in cases where classifying a person’s guilt is based on fact finding by way of fair and honest legal procedures instead of presenting facts alone. Because the rights listed in the Constitution are not simple, accountability and liability must be present for criminal justice officials and authorities. Equality and uniformity should have a place in the justice process.

There will always be crimes as long as humanity exist on the planet. However not all crime that is taken place is rightfully justify and correct. There is will be corruption in the justice system which will cause false actuation on the prosecutor. Which could cause harm on one’s life. However, this could be avoided if the evidencewas more carefully reviewed.

n criminal law, the mens rea refers to the defendant's state of mind at the time of their crime and there are several levels reflecting the need to have a particular mens rea for the offence committed. For example, in murder or a S:18 offence in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the mens rea present must be that of specific intent, which is where the defendant desired that particular outcome of their actions. However, it was held in R v Cunningham 1982, that the intention to cause serious harm was enough to satisfy the mens rea for murder. This shows that, where murder cases are concerned, that it is relatively easy to prove the required mens rea and in doing so the concept of fault is often satisfied. This is once again shown in oblique