The Relevancy of Diminished Responsibility Essay

A better way to interpret the following terminology of Mens Rea ad Actus Reus,is presented by the author Heller, from article The Cognitive Psychology of Mens Rea, “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea-"the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty," (p. 317). With the understanding behind the crime, there must be an understanding to why.

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.

Martineau [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the requirement of mens rea for murder. While Mr. Martineau was charged with 2nd degree murder, the application of the requirement should still stand. The judgment of Lamer C.J.C. with Dickson C.J.C, Wilson, Gonthier, and Cory JJ concurring concluded that s. 213 (a) violated the principle of fundamental justice that appropriate mens rea must be proven by the Crown. The mens rea requirements are as follows: “(1) the stigma attached to this offence, and the available penalties requiring a mens rea reflecting the nature of the crime, (2) whether the punishment is proportionate to the moral blameworthiness of the offender, and (3) the idea that those causing harm intentionally must be punished more severely than those causing harm unintentionally.” ( Saunders and Bromwich, p. 458) As first degree murder is a major indictable offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of life, the requirements of mens rea must be

In R v. Runjanjic and Kontinnen (1991), Chief Justice King explained the effects of ‘Battered Woman Syndrome’; a theory which is used to invoke why women kill their abusive partners “their (women) reactions and responses differ from those which might be expected by persons who lack the advantage of an acquaintance” (Lenore Walker, 2012). Walker argues that the syndrome would influence the abused individual to make decisions which appear illogical to a typical person. A common person would leave an abusive relationship rather than kill for self-preservation, whilst the syndrome would influence the victim to kill. In the case R v. Runjanjic and Kontinnen (1991) the loss of this ability is clear as the defendant’s lawyer claimed , “Though she doesn’t consciously remember her decision-making process, Kontinnen grabbed a shotgun and shot Hill in the back of the head”(Bradfield, 2011). The fact that Kontinnen cannot remember what caused her to make the decision to kill the deceased displays the effect violence has had on her mental health. Defendants using the defence of ‘Killing for preservation in an abusive relationship’ should have the opportunity for a full acquittal, as their damaged mind takes control of their decision

State of Mind—A wrongful mental state, mens rea is also typically required to establish criminal liability. The mental state, or intent, is indicated in the applicable statute or law.

In all criminal offences, a defendant can be convicted only if the proof of both “Actus Reus” and “Mens Rea” exists. The meaning of those two Latin phrases are “guilty act” and “guilty mind” respectively. Regarding the criminal offence of murder, an unlawful act which caused a human being’s death is sufficed to prove Actus Reus. Thus, the doctrine of causation must be proved, in other words, the victim’s death must be caused by the defendant’s unlawful act. Also, in murder cases, as suggested in the case of R v Moloney (1985) AC 905 and clarified in R v Vickers (1957) 2 QB 664, the Mens Rea will be established only if intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm can be proved.

Legal systems are critical to the functionality of any given society. In particular, issues of duty and responsibility are fundamental to address especially when one party causes harm or injury to another. In this respect, the concept of duty of care and its connection to negligence serve a key role in the society. Tort law provides for legal processes following acts of negligence that exhibit duty of care. The underlying liability in negligence, however, is limited because duty of care must be justified before the courts.

Culpability is based on the implication that one performs an act in which they are aware that the conduct is wrong but, lacks malice intent by the person performing said act. One’s culpability is based in two sectors of their lives morality(ethics) and legal responsibility. Morals are what one is taught to believe in or value these values dictate what actions or behaviors can and will be accepted and what is deemed a violation of those standards. A strong moral fiber is what helps maintain stability within one’s self and acceptable both morally and legally. Culpability from a legal stand point deals with a person who committed a crime and is legally at fault. This admission of fault is deals with instances in which the “guilty” party was not acting maliciously but, instead with reckless abandon.

In this assignment, the question is asked about what the Bible says concerning personal responsibility and confession? The author points out several scriptures about a chosen accountability and a written account of one's life with God. A few of these are; II Corinthians 5:10, I Timothy 5:8, and Philippians 2:12.

Once a victim is overwhelmed with guilt and shame, they begin to abandon their own needs and

Strict Liability offenses should be prosecuted as now even if they lack mens rea. Thus, crimes are not intentional or at fault of a civilian, such acts could cause harm to another. Therefor such crimes are prosecuted ordinarily. The means of not knowing could help a defendant in a case.

Negligent mens rea, sometimes called criminal negligence, is when a person simply fails to acknowledge the risks of a potential accident

Although most legal systems recognize the importance of the guilty mind, or mens rea, exactly what is meant by this concept varies

In criminals has always find ways to excuse the severity of their actions, may it be child molester claiming that because he or she was abuse as a teen or serial killers trying to soften their diabolic nature by stating that since they have a bump on the side of their head they cannot cognitively rational their action therefore they should be excuse or Criminal offenders such as drug dealers, burglar saying they’re product of their environment and upbringing. Nevertheless Theories  such as Neutralization exposes each techniques that criminals use to soften the seriousness of their offenses and denial of responsibility.

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