Comparative Criminal Justice Systems : Guilty But Insane

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

Risk for most people is an accepted part of everyday life e.g. catching a bus or walking to the shop etc... will carry some element of risk. Risk is associated with our health, safety, security, well being, employment, education, daily activities, using resources and equipment and community participation. Some adults such as those who are disabled or who are older are usually discouraged from taking risks with their budgeting, planning, employment and their daily living skills usually because people fear for their limitations or that they might hurt themselves or others. Everyone has the right to take risks and make

Risk is defined by the probability of injury, harm, loss or danger. We all take risks every day, and don’t even think about implications.

The court deciphering between criminal negligence and recklessness. Criminal negligence being a person failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Negligence is carelessness amounting to the culpable breach of a duty, ie failure to do something that a reasonable person (ie an average

Negligence is when someone is failing to do something that a reasonable person would do in a similar situation or, doing something that a reasonable person did not do in a similar situation.

the prosecution, court, or defense. There are also several test to determine the clients’ insanity such as the M’Naughten Rule, Irresistible Impulse Test, and the Durham Standard. The M’Naghten standard or rule states that the client must have a defect or mental illness of the mind, as to not know the quality or nature of the crime that she was doing or if she knew what she was doing, or she did not know what she had done or did was wrong. Disease of the mind would mean that the client was in an emotional state or , intoxicated by drugs or alcohol. The irresistible Impulse test states that although the client could tell the difference from right and wrong, he or she was still subjected to an mental illness. This meant that at the time of the crime, the client lost power or control to choose between wrong and right, and that the crime

First we will define each. Mens rea is latin for mental element. A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element (Legal Dictionary, n.d). An example of this would be the current investigation and decision by the FBI not to prosecute Hillary Clinton because the FBI concludes Hillary Clinton did not mean to violate the law when she used her personal server to send out confidential emails.

Psychopaths are among us, and they’re growing vastly in many communities. Should we accuse mental cases of their unsafe activities? A significant part of the late open deliberation over this inquiry has concerned the limits of mental cases, and specifically, whether they are fit for learning. A few scholars have contended that mental cases ' deficiencies in sympathy cause them to experience issues with the securing of good ideas. These challenges in this way involve that they need good obligation about their activities.

Actus reus is the Latin term for “guilty act” and is defined as the physical element of an offense covering all acts which are not psychological, it is one of two integral elements which are needed to make up an offence the other being mens reus, when these two are paired together without any defence the resulting verdict in a court of law would be guilty.

In the above calculations it is important to note that once again assumptions were made. I assumed the pleasure of paying less taxes would be more intense than the pain of knowing that no crime was being prevented from lack of intense punishment (death). It is cheaper to keep an inmate alive until they die naturally when compared to the cost of sentencing an inmate to death, and thus I considered it a monetary pleasure for tax paying citizens when an inmate is kept alive. “The punishment of death punishes taxpayers and drains away precious resources from the criminal justice system” (Costanzo 62). Now that any underlying assumptions within the data have been addressed, one is able to easily compute the aggregate utility for this option, and

Men’s rea described from the motive stand point, is like a guilty conscious in someone’s mind. It would be similar to having a goal and following through with it. ”The reason a person commits a crime is motive” (Hall, 2015). Mens rea and motive however, are different from each other. The motive is the step that was used prior to the crime and knowing what the intentions were in that motive can help key parts through men’s rea. A good example of motive in play: Bob was walking through the parking lot. While bob was walking through the parking lot, Bill was backing up but unaware Bob was behind him and ran over him. Now that would be an accident however look at it in a motive view: Bob was walking through the parking lot. Bill knew Bob was walking

Law is a method of resolution involving several different types of law in a difficult process of attempting to regulate acts of crime. Failure to code and act as debauched and damaging by an elected representative, it is not viewed as a crime; however, any act can be coded or defined by the government and can be made an act of crime. If an act is committed, and there are no provisions of punishment for the specific act, the governing body can write a new law; furthermore, no act is erroneous unless the government says it is erroneous (Robinson, 2005, pp. 50-51). What problems has society experienced when an act has not yet been coded, or the governing body has repudiated coding?

Imagine that one was planning to kill a person who you lost to millions of money in an enterprise but at the same time that person knew that if he or she got caught it would lead to a 7-year prison term? Imagine again that one is in the same situation but at the same time one is aware that it would mean the death penalty if you he or she caught? Few people would choose to kill if they were in situation B, rather than situation A. From this, it can be concluded that most people would choose to avoid from committing a crime if they realize that there's a risk of losing their lives as well.

When looking at crime there are five general elements that need to be considered. First, we will consider mens rea which is the mental element necessary for a crime (Brody & Acker, 2010). To determine if there is a crime we must consider the mental state of the offender. There is no crime unless there is wrongful intent however, there is no general terminology of mens rea that fits all crimes alike. There is no single state of mind common to all crimes. The term mens rea is a far-reaching term with one single element, the intent to commit a crime; the mental element necessary to convict a person of any particular crime. It has also been loosely defined as the criminal state of mind of the person when they committed the crime (Brody & Acker, 2010).