Four Elements Of Crime And Liability Without Fault

Biological Theories have been related to crime for a long time. The Biological Theory talks about how one’s brain has an impact on committing crime or not. Dr. Jim Fallon, a neuroscientist from California talks about the biological influences in a brain. He believes that the combination of three major aspects can determine whether someone is psychopathic or not. Fallon states a combination of genes, damage to the person 's brain and the environment surrounding the individual will have the biggest impact on a person (Fallon, 2009). A real world example of the biological theory in full effect was the crimes of David Berkowitz, aka “Son of Sam. Berkowitz was accused and found guilty of killing over 6 people in New York City. After being convicted and locked up for a few years, studies had shown that Berkowitz had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Berkowitz also claimed that his neighbor’s dog, Sam had told him to do the killings as well (Biography). Comparing the Biological theory to my own life was pretty simple because there is a genetic factor that runs in my dad’s side and that is tempers. Tempers tend to flare fairly easy, and luckily so far there has no issues with the law, however like Fallon had said, with the right combination, anyone is possible to commit a crime at any time. I feel like in a biological theory, this would have a major impact on my life

Mens rea, the third element, is viewed as one of the most important elements in criminal law. A crime consists of two elements mental and a physical. Mens rea is the reference of person's understanding the fact that his or her conduct is criminal.

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.

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

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.

There are four elements to tort law: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury. To claim damages, there must be a breach in the duty of the defendant

There are three conjoined elements of crime: Mental State (Mens Rea), Conduct (Actus Reus), and Concurrence.

A defendant can possess mens rea and still try to do the right thing. In the case of abuse, some parents and adult victims still try to seek medical attention for the injured party, while others flee or attempt to conceal the act. Where there is theft, there are defendants who attempt to return the merchandise, sometimes successful in avoiding prosecution and sometimes not, and so on. The presence of mens rea is not the sole guarantee of a conviction, however it is a very important part, and can determine case value almost immediately. It can also, as stated previously, give insight to a defense as well as project the application of sentencing guidelines and plea agreements to be

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’.

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.

Every theory of crime has at least 2-3 meta-theoretical levels above it. The fundamental issues are usually addressed at the approach level, and are often called the assumptions, or starting points, of a theory, although the term "assumptions" more strictly refers to the background or domain boundaries one can draw generalizations about. Above the approach level is the Perspective level, the largest unit of agreement within a scientific community, and in fact, the names for the scientific disciplines. Perspectives are sometimes called paradigms or viewpoints, although some people use the term paradigm to refer to untestable ideologies such as: (1) rational choice; (2) pathogenesis; (3) labeling;

As the nineties began, the general theory of crime became the most prominent criminological theory ever proposed; furthermore, it is empirically recognized as the primary determinant in deviant and criminal behaviors. Known also as the self-control theory, the general theory of crime can most simply be defined as the absence or lack of self-control that an individual possesses, which in turn may lead them to commit unusual and or unlawful deeds. Authored by educator Michael R. Gottfredson and sociologist Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (1990) essentially “dumbed down” every theory of crime into two words, self-control. The widely accepted book holds that low self-control is the main reason that a person initiates all crimes, ranging from murder and rape to burglary and embezzlement. Gottfredson and Hirschi also highlighted, in A General Theory of Crime (1990), that low self-control correlates with personal impulsivity. This impulsive attitude leads individuals to become insensitive to deviant behaviors such as smoking, drinking, illicit sex, and gambling (p. 90). The extreme simplicity, yet accuracy, of Gottfredson’s and Hirschi’s general theory of crime (self-control theory), make it the most empirically supported theory of criminal conduct, as well as deviant acts.

Biological theory states that the individual will have certain traits will be transmitted from parent to children through genetics and not from social learning. Along with the juvenile having similar facial characteristics, which some believe also predisposes them to criminal behavior (Palmerin, 2012).