Mens Rea: Intention and Recklessness Compared

* 2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a

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

Operant conditioning applies to the enactment of criminal statutes in many ways. Society has been studied to determine what acceptable and unacceptable behaviors are. As a result of these studies and the enactment of statutes, they have identified those actions by citizens that are not desirable or dangerous

The prosecution reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter as they did not believe the requisite degree of reckless indifference or lack of mens rea were sufficient evidence to support the charge of murder. The use of discretion is outlined in the

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.

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) held that the discretion to impose the death sentence for specific crimes was to be bi-furcated into two separate trials. The first to determine guilt or innocence; the second to determine the aggravating and mitigating factors. The State of Oceana adopted the findings of the U.S. Supreme Court in People v. Wende, 600 P. 2d 1071 (Cal: Supreme Court 1979) In

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.

Koppersmith’s testimony of his actions portrayed a picture of unintentional events. The judge referred to the Woods case, “ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Mark was found outside the only exit Nancy could use, in his pickup truck drunk and asleep. When the police officer arrived, they had charged mark with an invasion of privacy for violating the terms of the protective order and public intoxication. Then the state of Indiana charged mark with attempted murder, a jury trial was held and the jury found Mark guilty. Mark was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and after completing his time five years of probation. The Indiana court had accepted mark collier appeal for his attempted murder charge, Mark had said that the evidence was insufficient and his acts were a preparation for the murder. The acts that mark had done makes the courts believe that mark was going to go through with the crime. The facts that were presented to the jury would make them believe that Mark had to take the substantial step for the crime of attempted murder. If Mark was awake, was going into the hospital, and opened to door, Mark would be guilty of attempted murder. The Indiana Supreme Court made a decision that mark was not guilty of attempted murder. Mark was not near Nancy since he was in the back of the parking

In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.

Certainty is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental concepts of our legal system, without it the system loses it efficiency, justice and creates unnecessary litigation. Such uncertainty would increase the difference between the rich and the poor, tilting the balance towards the

This essay will briefly discuss the meaning of criminal recklessness within the criminal law and the types of recklessness, and see what the current law states today. The essay will examine the advantages and disadvantages of using the subjective test (which is currently known today as Cunningham recklessness) regarding criminal recklessness which was used in the case of Gemmell and Richards (2003) 3 WLR 1060.

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.

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’.