Principles Mens Rea, Actus Reus - Case Study Example

Name Institution Title: Principles Mens Rea, Actus Reus Course Date Introduction The case study outlines some examples of actions that may be considered on a various offenses associated with stealing. These offences include stealing grapes, stealing peaches, reading magazines of which one has not paid for. Other offenses mentioned in the case study are removing a banana from a banana or a tomato stock, stealing nuts and general contamination. Stealing according to the Crimes Act 1900 No 40 is described as an action in which a dishonestly appropriates possessions to another person with an aim of permanently depriving that other individual of that possession. Thus all these offenses are considered as stealing according to the Crimes Act 1900 No 40. However, the offenses are governed by the principle of Mens Rea because the individuals who committed the acts were not aware at least in their minds that they were committing crime. The principle of Mens Rea The principle involves the mental element or a type of criminal intent that that needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubts in a criminal suit. The principle of Mens Rea is a complex one first because it is defined differently by different courts and also consists of four types of criminal intent. All have different levels of blameworthiness. Different types of intent apply to different types or elements of crime. Each case is thus examined individually under this doctrine of Mens Rea. The four elements of crime considered are actus reus, causation, circumstance or that described by the statute. Actus reus is the conduct of the person alleged to have committed a crime (Dubber, 2002). Proving Mens Rea The offenses mentioned in the case study are very difficult and complex for the prosecutors. This is because the prosecution is required to prove that indeed the persons had intentions to commit the crimes. It is impossible to measure intent because even the most sophisticated instruments cannot detect it. Confessions are thus the only proof to mens rea. Since not many defendants would confess of their intentions, the proof of intent normally relies on indirect or circumstance evidence (Dubber, 2002). Types of Mens Rea The four types of mens rea that would apply in the case study include general intent, specific, transferred and constructive intent. General intent is concerned with crimes of criminal behavior and it describes the intent to commit a criminal action. For instance, the actus reas of robbery is breaking and getting access to a property, of larceny is the taking away another individuals possessions and of rape is the sexual penetration of another individual. Specific intent is applicable in crimes of cause and consequences. Thus, on top of the intent to commit the criminal act, specific intent encompasses the intent to cause a specific result like homicide which needs the intent to cause death. Transferred intent is applicable in cases where the individuals involved intend to harm one person but instead harm another. For instance, if Alan fires at his enemy Ken but instead hits Ann, the law transfers Alan’s intent to kill Ken to the intent to kill Ann. Constructive intent is applicable in cases where the perpetrators cause harms of higher magnitude than they intended or expected. For instance, if Ann over speeds on a rough road loses control and kills, Armstrong, Ann has the constructive intent to kill (Glazebrook, 2005). The Model Penal Code An individual is not culpable of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently. These are the four criminal mental states. Thus if the prosecution can prove any of these against the actions of the individuals in the case study, then they will be guilty of the offenses. Purpose According to the Model Penal Code the most blameworthy state of mind is purpose. Generally, this implies having a particular intent to commit a criminal activity or to cause criminal harms. For instance, in common law robbery, the robber has to break into and get access to a house with the intention of committing a crime. In a murder case, the murderer’s intention has to be to kill someone. Knowledge This level of culpability is where for instance where one commits an act that hurts another person and although not with the intention to harm, the person knew that the action is hurting. This implies that one can know that he is hurting others without doing it on purpose or with the particular intent of hurting. Another example is the crime of treason in the U.S constitution. Treason is providing assistance and comfort to enemies with the intention of overthrowing the government. Culprits can offer assistance and comfort to enemies of the country knowing that their behavior could lead to overthrow of the government. However, this is not enough because they are required to offer the assistance with the intention of overthrowing the government in order to constitute to a crime of treason. In state v, Barnes (1997) case, the Oregon appeal court struggled with the “knowingly” condition in the state’s assault statute. This was an example of a case in which the condition of “knowingly” proved complicated to deal with. Recklessness Recklessness is concerned with creating risks probably on purpose or knowingly. Reckless people are aware that they are creating risks which can harm although they do not intend to or is the last thing they expect. Recklessness is not as blameworthy as actions on purpose or knowingly. This is because reckless people do not engage in a particular action with the intention of causing harm and they do not even anticipate that knowing harm is practically certain to happen. Because reckless defendants are aware that they are causing risks of harm, the blameworthiness of recklessness depends on the likelihood of purpose and knowledge in sureness. Recklessness entails more than knowledge of ordinary risks and it also entails knowledge of substantial and unjustifiable risks (Glazebrook, 2005). Negligence Just like recklessness, negligence is concerned with creation of risks. While recklessness is concerned with consciously creating risks, negligence is concerned with negligently creating risks. An instance of an act of negligence is where one did not intend to hurt another person and was not even aware that chances were high that he would hurt him, but he should have known that chances were high that his actions would hurt the other person. The test for negligence is entirely objective, the perpetrators should have known that they were creating risks even though in real sense they did not know. For instance, a sensible person should know that driving at more than fifty kilometers per hour across a crowded street causes a risk of harm, even though the driver was not aware. The driver who should be aware of this but is not is negligent. The driver who is aware of this, but still over speeds is negligent. In each of the cases of stealing in the case study, the prosecutor is required to prove the type of criminal act in order to determine the level of blameworthiness (Carpenter, 2003). Implication of LEPRA The police are guided by Part 8 of LEPRA which stipulates the basic rules to arrest. The powers stipulated by this part are to be executed in line with the safeguards and should include stating the reason for making an arrest in Part 15 of LEPRA. According to the rules when police are arresting a suspect, they should consider where are valid grounds for making the arrests and these include a suspicion that an offense has occurred. The arrest should be carried out using minimum force which is reasonably understandable depending on the situation or circumstances in question. The police are thus required to use force that is comparable to the resistance offered by the suspect. Although the actions by the people in the case study are offenses, it is not necessarily that police will arrest them. This is because there are competing requirements between the rights of a person to be free and the need to go to the extremes of arresting the person. Police will be required to consider the alternatives to arrest in this case. The alternatives to arrest include caution, warning, infringement notice, penalty notice, court attendance summon or youth justice conference (Carpenter, 2003). The police will be compelled to apply other alternatives to arrest in this case study because most of the people are either acting out of negligence or recklessness. Most of them are not aware that their actions constitute an offense and do not even intend to commit crimes. Liability without Mens Rea: strict liability Criminal liability is based on at least some level or degree of blameworthiness. This applies mainly where serious crimes such as homicides are involved. The minimum requirements for culpability are that a suspect is not guilty of a crime unless he committed the crime purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently in regard to the factors or material elements involved. There are however several minor offenses where there is liability without culpability or strict liability. Strict liability this makes accidental acts a crime. The prosecution is required to prove only that suspects committed a voluntary criminal act that resulted to harm (Simons, 1997). The U.S Supreme Court has allowed the legislatures to create strict liability offenses to safeguard the public health and safety on the condition that they are imposing liability without mens rea. Proponents of strict liability argue that there is a strong public interest in safeguarding public health and safety. Strict liability emerged from the actions of the industrial revolution when production, mining and commerce put many people into risks of death, mutilation and illnesses from poisonous fumes, risky railroads, workplaces and other situations (Ormerod, 2005). Conclusion Although the actions of the individuals in the case study constitute to crimes of theft, they may not necessarily be arrested because they are acting out of negligence or recklessness. Negligence and recklessness attract lesser blameworthiness compared to purposely or knowingly committed crimes. Most of them are not aware that their actions constitute to crimes of theft and they do not even intend to. Police will be limited in the extent to which they can respond to this case. They will not arrest the people because their actions do not constitute to serious crimes. They will thus apply other alternatives to arrest such as cautioning or warning the people. It will also be a challenging task to prove Mens Rea in this case as most of the people in the case will not admit that they intended to commit crimes by their actions. Bibliography Dubber, M. D. 2002. Criminal Law: Model Penal Code. Foundation Press. State v. Caddell, 215 S.E.2d 348, 360 (N.C. 1975) state v, Barnes (1997) case Coke, Edward (1797). Institutes, Part III Taylor v Thames Valley Police [2004] EWCA Civ 858, [2004] 1 WLR 3155, [2004] 3 All ER 503 (6 July 2004), Court of Appeal Lewis & Another v Chief Constable of the South Wales Constabulary [1990] EWCA Civ 5, [1991] 1 All ER 206 (11 October 1990), Court of Appeal Allen, M. (2005). Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carpenter, 2003. "On Statutory Rape, Strict Liability, and the Public Welfare Offense Model". American Law Review. Vol. 53, 313. Carson, W. G. 2000. "Some Sociological Aspects of Strict Liability and the Enforcement of Factory Legislation". Modern Law Review Vol. 33, 396. Glazebrook, P. R. 2001. "How old did you think she was?" Camb. Law Journal 26. Ormerod, D. 2005. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law. London: LexisNexis. Simons, 1997. "When Is Strict Criminal Liability Just?" Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Vol. 87, 1075. Read More