Principle of Mens Rea - Report Example

Principle of Mens rea When conducting a criminal investigation, three elements are usually considered and they include voluntary action, failure to act and the state of mind. Failure to take, action entails the inability of an individual to act in accordance to the law, for instance, getting a driver’s license before acquiring an automobile. Usually, for one to be convicted there must be proof of an unlawful deed and intent. It should, however, be noted that an act without a guilty mind makes the defendant devoid of guilt. Therefore, it is the principle of natural justice that the intent and the act must both occur in tandem in order to constitute a crime.1 This paper focuses on the principle of mens rea together with actus reus and their effects about determination of criminal cases. There are two main elements that constitute a crime, and these include mens rea and actus Reus. Mens rea Mens rea, also termed as “guilty mind” is a word that is commonly used to refer to the mental intention or the defendant’s mental state in the course of committing the offense.” This crime element remains critical in the sense that it is used to describe a crime as either voluntary or purposeful. A crime act usually comes from what is popularly referred to as ancient maxim that is the “act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty.” As such, it is required that in order to secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused not only committed the particular offense (actus reus). However, he must also prove that the crime was committed with the sole intention of committing a crime (the defendant had the mens rea when committing the crime.2 mens rea, however, remains largely differentiated from the motive. The mens rea usually focuse on the intention with which the defendant took action when committing the crime. The motive, on the other hand, is more or less the actual reason behind the person engaged in a criminal act; therefore, motive does not feature in the elements of a crime. For instance, in a situation where the prosecutor determines the motive but fails to prove the mens rea, the charges levelled against the defendant can be dropped without regard of his motive when committing the criminal act. On the other hand, if the prosecution can prove mens rea in conjunction with the actus rea, then the defendant will have no choice but to be convicted regardless of how good or noble his motive was in the time of committing a criminal act.3 There are four main types of mens rea as follows; Purposeful Intent: This form of mens rea is the one in which the culprit has the greatest form of intent. In this intent, the defendant is depicted as being fully aware of his intention to commit a dangerous crime or an illegal act. For instance, in a case where a person willingly targets another, assaults him or her knowingly with an objective of inflicting bodily harm, then he is displaying criminal intent. Therefore, upon being established that the defendant assaulted the victim with an objective of inflicting bodily harm. He can be convicted irrespective of whether he never intended to violate the law or was not aware that his act was criminal.4 Knowledge: This category of the mens rea applies in the event that the person is fully aware that his or her actions will produce a particular outcome but still goes on to commit the same. Recklessness: In this category, the person proceeds to commit a crime despite having a deep knowledge of the implications associated with the same. For example, a drunk driver who causes injury can be found guilty of causing harm in a reckless manner. Although it may be argued that the person did not have the intention of hurting anyone, the fact that he took the risk of driving while drunk can implicate the person to being reckless.5 Negligence: Unlike other categories above, negligence is often regarded as the mildest form of criminal culpability. This is largely because despite involving the participation in risky and dangerous behavior akin to that of recklessness; the perpetrator is considered unaware of the dangers of their action and, therefore, less blameworthy.6 Actus Reus All crimes are perceived to be actus reus, which is “guilty act.” This is essentially because an individual cannot be subjected to punishment for bad thoughts alone as there can be no criminal liability without actus reus. In some cases, the words of the culprit can also be considered as acts in criminal law. In particular, words whose intention is to cause among other things, threats and perjury effectively add to the element of actus reus. Accordingly, actus reus is perceived as the behaviour of the accused; it can, for instance, be an act of omission. In addition, it must be seen as a voluntary act with the implication of causing damage or harm.7 In actus reus, it is often the case that the accused person’s behaviour must be proved as a voluntary act. Otherwise, the perpetrator will not be held personally responsible for acts committed in an automation state. It should, however, be understood that automation occurring as a result of self-induced intoxication will not be justifiable. In a nutshell, there is absence of burden of obligation on any individual to any wrongdoing. In many instances, omissions are only criminal in cases where a duty to act arises at a common law or imposed by statute.8 In R v Miller (1983] 2 AC 161 case, the accused was, for instance, found culpable of having been in the drinking spree. Upon entering his house, the defendant slept on the mattress and forgot to put his lit cigarette away from the mattress. In the process, the room caught fire but instead of the defendant putting out the fire, he moved to another room where he found another mattress and continued with his sleep. In his judgment, the magistrate argued that the defendant had created a dangerous situation and, as such, was supposed to have alerted the fire brigade immediately he sensed the fire. Consequently, the man was found responsible for his negligence to put his cigarette away from the mattress.9 Strict Liability Offenses While many cases are pegged on the proof of mens rea, some cases do not and are referred to as strict liability offenses. In such cases, the defendant is convicted of the crimes irrespective of whether he did not have any mens rea while committing a crime or lacked the same. Accordingly, such cases are devoid of proof of mens rea. In strict liability offenses, the liability is often regarded as being quite strict essentially because defendants will be convicted regardless of whether or not they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors which led to their acts. An illustration of the strict liability offense application is in the statutory rape laws in which case the perpetrator is held responsible of sexual misconduct with a minor. Through strict liability offenses, one can also be charged even for mistaking the age of a minor and selling him or her harmful substances such as alcohol and tobacco.10 Strict liability offenses most affect the health and safety sectors. In addition, they are applied in the transport sector, for example, speeding or driving without insurance. An example of where it was applied was in the R v. Williams 1WLR 588 case in which the offense of causing an accident and subsequent deaths while driving without a license was regarded to be a strict liability offense. As a result, the maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment was given in addition to the 14 years sentence due to the offense of reckless driving leading to death. It has, however, been argued that strict liability is quite harsh and can potentially lead to the creation of injustices. Some people also argue that imposing strict liability will more likely lead to people exercising more caution and, as such act as a deterrent to others. Essentially though, strict liability is seen as important as it ensures that more convictions are secured. In addition, it effectively holds people liable by eliminating false accounts aimed at justifying one’s state of minds.11 Considerations of whether are right for the defendant to be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind In making such a decision, one has to consider the different aspects of consciousness that underlie the association between mens rea and culpability. That is the awareness of a legal or moral norm and awareness of the individual’s conduct and its possible consequences. For instance, in trying to understand the way in which an individual’s actions affect another, the judge may also demand to understand the extent to which mental retardation may cause the individual to act.12 Although it is the case that a person’s lack of understanding may not dictate total failure to acknowledge his or her actions as may be required by insanity standards. The individual may nevertheless fail to acknowledge his or her capacity, conduct or impact. It has been observed that the social transmission of moral and legal norms rarely happen in individuals with mental problems. It always the case that such people rarely associate with peers of average intelligence; consequently, it is difficult to get information that can be used to determine whether their conduct is permissible or impermissible.13 On a more general note, the presumption of awareness that links mens rea and culpability is not entirely true for people with mental retardation. However, although such defendants will be trained, they may still remain largely unaware of the implications of their behavior. With regards to whether it is right for the defendant to be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind or not. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to ascertain the defendants’ state of mind before proceeding to convict them. Considerations of whether the mental element required for offenses against the person corresponds to the actus reus and whether it should correspond with the actus reus The usual distinction that occurs between the mental element and the external manifestation of a crime can be extremely difficult to apply especially in cases that are possessive in nature. This is simply because situation and terms of reference simultaneously infer to both mental and physical elements. An individual may, for instance, be in possession of an illegal substance such as a banned drug without prior knowledge of his possession. It may also happen, for example that a person may be carrying a say a penknife that has been stuck to his shoes without his knowledge.14 In such circumstances, one could argue that there is a definite psychological inherent in the actus reus of any crime of illegal possession. The most appropriate analysis could be that the lawful thought of ownership encompasses the actus reus component of physical possession. Moreover, it also include the state of mind of which can form the requisite mens area. That notwithstanding, it may be deemed convenient in practice to treat the animus possidendi more like it were the actus reus element simply because the prosecution must at any given time be required to prove the same. Therefore, even in a case involving possession of drugs, the burden of proof with regards to the mens rea element is delegated to the defence. In considering whether the mental element required for offences against the person corresponds to the actus reus and whether it should correspond with the actus reus, the position is that the statement is in the affirmative.15 In a nutshell, both the mens rea and actus must normally occur in tandem i.e. the criminal intent should precede or occur in coexistence with the criminal act. In the event of a criminal trial, the prosecutor is usually tasked with burden of proving actus reus and mens rea beyond doubt and tries to bar any successful defence. Bibliography Andrew Ashworth, Campbell Kenneth, “Recklessness in Assault and in General?” (1991) 107 LQR 187, 192. Cynthia Curry and others, ‘Evaluation of Mental Retardation: Recommendations of a Consensus Conference (1997) 72 AMJ MED GENETICS 468. P Herbert, ‘Mens Rea and the Supreme Court’ (1962) 1 JSTOR accessed 23 December 2014. Karlen Peter, ‘An Analysis of The Concepts Of Mens Rea And Actus Reus In The Criminal Law’ (UOW, New York 1997). Lynch A C E, ‘The mental Element in the Actus Reus’ (1982) 98 LQR 109. Robinson Paul H, ‘A Brief History of Distinctions in Criminal Culpability’ (1980) 31 HASTINGS LJ 815, 830. Read More