Mens Rea Essay

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

The definition of masculinity; Is the fact of being a man or having qualities considered typical of a man.

On appeal against conviction, the defendants argued that they were not liable because they had not known that the changes they had made were substantial ones. However, the court held that the offence was strict liability and the convictions were upheld. The Privy Council decided there were five factors which should be considered when deciding if an offence was one of strict liability. These five points are; firstly there is a presumption of mens rea with statutory criminal offences. This is demonstrated in the case of Sweet v Parsley. In the case of Sweet v Parsley the defendant rented rooms out to tenants, who smoked cannabis on her property without her knowledge. The defendant was convicted of ‘being concerned with the management of premises used for smoking cannabis.’ However her conviction was quashed because the offence was ‘truly criminal’ rather than regulatory therefore the court decided that it had to be proved that she knew the property was being used for smoking cannabis as her liberty was involved. This shows that mens rea is fundamental in criminal law. Also this case was in the interest of the public so therefore the courts considered the defendants mens rea in order to make the decision faire and just, which is another reason why mens rea is fundamental and shows an act alone cannot constitute a guilty mind. Lord Reid said that it’s not parliament’s intention to make people who are not blameworthy criminals. This means that whenever a

Dave Barry is a Pulitzer Prize-winning humorist whose syndicated column appears in more than 500 newspapers. Barry’s published works, totaling more than 25, include ‘Stay Fit and Healthy until You’re Dead’ (1985), ‘Dave Barry Hits Below the Beltway’ (2001), and ‘Dave Barry’s Complete Guide to Guys: A Fairly Short Book’ (1995). The preface to Barry’s book ‘Dave Barry’s Complete Guide to Guys: A Fairly Short Book’, ‘Guys vs. Men’, is his perspective on the difference between “Guys” and “Men.” While both words no doubt bring to mind an image of a human male, they are very different in there description of that male. First, guys like to buy “neat” things that they don’t really need. Also, guys like a really pointless challenge. Last, but not

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.

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.

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’.

Every action has a reaction. All human beings react to certain situations in certain ways. Little children cringe at the sight of brussel sprouts, people cry at sad movies, and everyone laughs at jokes. How do men react when they are brought before the nude female form? What is the basis for their reactions? Do people change personalities when exposed to this? I have tried to learn the mysteries behind these questions, and brought myself to many conclusions. The explanations of these questions' answers are not short and simple. They are in fact very complex. To sum up the topic, there is not just one reaction, and this depends on many key factors. All people change, from a tiny bit to a drastic

Many do not realize just how gendered everyday public spaces are. Specific areas within society have grown into male or female dominated spaces, with very few being neutral. Until recently I did not realize that the block of South University between S. Forest Ave and Church St. is very clearly a masculine space. I walk this block of South University multiple times a day and have started to understand how a simple block of a street has become a man’s sphere. With careful examination of this block, Foucault’s concept of visibility and issues that Valentine discusses can assist in displaying how South University has turned into a masculine space.

It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use. Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s), regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will identify and explore these arguments.

     For many years society has embraced the idea that the difference between men and women were biologically determined. Thou through traditions, media, and peers we act accordingly to how others view us. Each individual has pressure placed upon them based on their gender. Our sex is determined by genetics while our gender is programmed by social customs. Some theories interpret that a women is tender and a loving mother while on the other hand men are aggressive hunters and are the dominant one of the family. People who support this theory seems to believe that men and women are happier when fulfilling the roles nature determined for them. Women are to be nurturing and men are to be providers by

It was through the R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (1978) that the court was able to establish and recognize three categories of offences; True criminal offence, which involves having the state of mind of “intent, knowledge, or recklessness”; to commit the actual crime, and “must be proved by the prosecution either as an inference from the nature of the act committed, or by additional evidence”, meaning that a complete mens rea must be included within the offence, and take full punishment for their actions. The second category that was established in the Sault Ste Marie (1978) case, was the concept of Strict Liability Offences; in which, as described as offences that don’t necessarily require the prosecution to prove an existing mens rea, “the doing of the prohibited act prima facie imports the offence, leaving it open to the accused to avoid

The Court of Appeal can sometimes pay lip-service to s 8 and quash convictions because the jury were not clearly directed that the test of intention is subjective9. Nevertheless, originally an objective test was used to decide oblique intention in DPP v Smith10 which widened the MR of murder. The House of Lords held that the accused was guilty of murder for two reasons. Firstly, because death or grievous bodily harm was foreseen as a likely result of the accused’s unlawful act. Secondly, the accused was deemed to have foreseen the risk which a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have foreseen. The second ground for the House of Lords’ decision had been widely criticised as it introduced an objective element in the meaning of intention.11TheVickers12 has modified by DPP v Smith that the mental element in murder requires proof of an intention to kill or cause GBH, where the probability of foreseeing can be defined as exceeding a certain degree, is equivalent or alternative to the necessary intention. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be convicted of murder if it is established that he had intended to kill or create grievous bodily harm. In considering the construction of s1(1) [Homicide Act 1957], it can be said that an intention to cause GBH at least evidenced a willingness to

An incredibly sensitive subject that has only been silently amplified in the 21st century, is the topic of Sex, Gender, and Women vs. Men. We're living in the time of tiny cellular devices and electric cars, yet with all these technological advances, when it comes to gender equality it almost feels like we've been going around in a ridiculous merry-go-round.

Given that the structure of gender qualities has been a large part of our views, in regards to a variety of issues, a number of people take exception to variances from within these rules. Keeping this in mind, we will discuss the reasons why many individuals are discouraged from crossing traditional gender traits, and closely examine parts of the article assigned for this paper.