Why Is Not A Conviction?

1228 Words Aug 4th, 2016 5 Pages
Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Provide a rationale to support your position.
In most cases the conviction is and can be feasible when a perpetrator does engaged in actus reus but the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an actus reus and had the requisite mens rea in order to obtain a conviction for acting as an accomplice.Actus reus is commonly defined as a criminal act that was the result of voluntary bodily movement. This describes a physical activity that harms another person or damages property. Anything from a physical assault or murder to the destruction of public property would qualify as an actus reus.The reason why mens rea wouldn 't apply to the conviction is because the person knows and understand what they are doing or about to do it,but doesn’t go forward with their action to really commit the crime, althrough in some situtation defendant can be convicted as an accomplice even if his/her assistance in the commission of the crime was not necessary.Mens rea is necessary for accomplice liability, First, whether or not the accomplice must have the mens rea to commit the actual crime that is being committed by the principal, and second, whether the accomplice must also intend for his or her actions to actually help or encourage the principal in the completion of the crime.To convict an accused person of a wrongdoing, a criminal…
Open Document