Concepts of Criminal Law - Essay Example

Certain defenses arise from these acts which led to the prosecution of Johnny. In the crime of possession of the Nutria, the state maintains that the act is that of strict liability, however, though the act of carrying the Nutria is a capital offence, there lacks the level of Mens Rea whereby, the defendant did not knowingly or intentionally possess the Nutria with the knowledge of its illegality. The defendant, Johnny Juneau, lives a conservative and segregated life in the woods, where the new change in rule of law has not traversed.

Henceforth, the jury should not convict him of the crime however much ignorance of the Law is no defense. Proof that the level of Mens Rea required to convict Johnny lacks in this case, can be given by the town’s people who know him well, those that know he has not been in town for a long time. In the case of gas theft, the defense presents that Johnny was acting under a mistake of fact. In his last visit to town, the rates for gas were $1.4 per gallon, and on arriving at the gas station, Johnny believed the sign that read $4.

42 per gallon was a mistake. He believed it true that the 4 was supposed to be one and therefore borrowed the ladder, with the assumption that the law permits self help. The case is a case of specific intent, whereby, Johnnie did not intend on taking control of the storekeeper’s property, however, he only meant to do good by correcting “the mistake”. In the case of gas theft, the evidence provided clearly outlines that the level of Mens Rea required to convict Johnny does not exist. Johnny was acting under a mistake of fact, and good intentions.

Due to this reasons the Jury should not convict him for the crime. The accusation that Johnny murdered the neighbor does not suffice since first the unlawful act that can lead to murder (Actus Reus) did not exist since he only placed a ladder to change the gas store sign. Then the thought of acting in such a manner that the neighbor would die does not exist thereby lacking the necessary level of Mens Rea required to convict him does not exist. Johnny is still innocent on grounds of negligence since it is not his fault there existed a live wire that was the negligence of the storekeeper.

Johnny therefore lacked the knowledge nor the intent to kill anyone when he decided to borrow the ladder. The Judges Decision Johnny appears to be a victim of circumstances, since his innocent motives seem to lead to crimes. All cases seem to lack the necessary Mens Rea required to convict Johnny. In the Judges perspective, the best way to resolve this would be critically analyzing the facts of the case, and the statutes of Law, to be able to come to a reasonable decision. In the case of possession of Nutria it is the duty of the state, to make known any sudden amendments in the laws of the state, and it is the duty of the citizens to carefully study and follow the rules of law.

In Johnny’s case of Nutria possession, Johnny lives in the woods, a segregated and conservative life and there is no reasonable way that the change in law reached him, therefore, though there exists ignorance of Law, the State cannot convict Johnny since the facts presented prove that he lacked the level of Mens Rea that would otherwise convict him. In the case of theft of gas, the evidence pro