Actus Reus and Mens Rea - Research Paper Example

Actus Reus and Mens Rea Research Paper Introduction Majority of crimes demand whatlawyers call ‘mens rea’ in Latin, or ‘guilty mind’. Basically, what an offender was thinking and what the offender planned when the offense was perpetrated is important. The main purpose of ‘mens rea’ is to help the criminal justice system distinguish between an individual who did not intend to perpetrate a crime and an individual who deliberately planned to perpetrate a crime (Emanuel, 2007). Motive is a circumstantial way to verify that an act was carried out purposefully or deliberately. A suspect in an assault case, for instance, may say that he hit the victim unintentionally and hence did not have the required motive for an assault, or a motive to bring about physical injury (Allen, 2013). Nevertheless, if the prosecution can establish that the victim and defendant had been quarrelling immediately prior to the suspected assault, the intent can work as a circumstantial proof that a suspect truly did intend to hurt the victim. Otherwise, defendants can take advantage of the prosecution’s lack of evidence of intent as a ‘reasonable doubt’ to evade criminal responsibility (LaFave, 2006). This paper discusses ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ as depicted on the cases of homicide, murder, rape, and manslaughter. It also answers the following questions: why are individuals not punished for their thoughts? What are some of the reasons why law requires ‘mens rea’? Why is it difficult to prove ‘mens rea’ beyond a reasonable doubt? Actus Reus and Mens Rea on Homicide Murder is a usual crime which has not been identified by the law. The 17th-century definition of murder given by Sir Edward Coke is “… the unlawful killing of a reasonable person in being and under the King’s peace with malice aforethought, express or implied… is widely referenced. The actus reus is described by the first part and mens rea by the second” (Allen, 2013, 324). As explained by Sir Edward Coke, the mens rea of murder needs one component to be met—malice aforethought, whether overt or covert. Aforethought does not necessitate planning or thinking ahead of time just that the motive to murder does not occur after the action. The mens rea of unlawful killing is fulfilled by the motive to kill or bring about serious physical injury (Allen, 2013). Overt motive is direct, a suspect fires at the victim attempting to murder him. Motive could also be indirectly expressed by the suspect trying to bring about harm which leads to death (Brody & Acker, 2011). Nevertheless, problems emerge when the primary goal of the defendant is not to inflict severe harm or murder, referred to as ‘oblique intention’ (Wechsler, 1962, 28). This raises the issue of the suspect’s foresight or, more specifically, the question of how far can motive to kill or inflict grave harm be concluded from the offender foreseeing these outcomes of his/her act? An individual perpetrates murder when s/he takes the life of another person with the necessary motive. Motive to inflict severe physical harm or murder is necessary. Foresight of outcomes could be applied, as evidence, to deduce motive (Brody & Acker, 2011). On the other hand, homicide is defined as the killing of an individual by another person and murder is a case of unlawful homicide. Manslaughter is also considered an unlawful homicide, both voluntary and involuntary. The ‘actus reus’ of murder necessitates three components to be met—a reasonable individual in being and under the King’s peace, and unlawful killing (Clarkson, 2005). Certain acts of killing could be defended in law like killing to defend oneself or in the preemption of a criminal act, provided that reasonable force has been applied. Moreover, certain acts of killing could be allowed or sanctioned, for instance during legal executions or at times of war (Brooks, 1985). Killing could be the outcome of an omission. The ‘actus reus’ of murder could be existent if an individual has an obligation to act but did not do so and a loss of life takes place. On the other hand, ‘under the king’s peace’ refers to the absolution for the killing of an opponent in war, per se an individual is not ‘under the king’s peace’ (Allen, 2013). Yet, the ‘actus reus’ of murder would connect with the killing of a prisoner of war (POW) (Brooks, 1985). ‘Actus reus’ of a crime is the ‘guilty act’ of the defendant. For numerous crimes the act should have brought about a specific outcome. So as to establish if the guilty act of the defendant brought about the necessary outcome the rules of causation should be exercised (Ren, 1997). For instance, with regard to crimes against the individual, the action of the defendant should have brought about harm to the victim which is associated with the specific crime. If causation cannot be established, there is criminal responsibility or the act is not illegal (Brody & Acker, 2011). Actus Reus and Mens Rea on Rape While the ‘actus reus’ condition for rape has been modified or is shifting in numerous jurisdictions, likewise the ‘mens rea’ condition for rape has transformed or is shifting, and present conditions differ broadly among the states. The usual common-law rulings, and a number of new rape rulings too, were ‘typically silent’ with regard to a clear provision of ‘mens rea’, and certain courts hence interpret in a ‘general intent’ kind of mental liability, frequently described as a ‘morally blameworthy’ thinking or a ‘wrongful intent’ (Clarkson, 2005). However, Susan Estrich emphasized that “most American courts have omitted mens rea altogether” (LaFave, 2006, 634). If the traditional approach for examining any major crime, like rape, is used, the independent component of ‘mens rea’ should, apparently, be verified beyond a reasonable doubt besides the ‘actus reus’ component (Allen, 2013). On the contrary, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of the ‘actus reus’ aspects of a sexual violence or rape usually also gives compelling evidence of any related ‘mental culpability’ that could be necessary. Because such wrongful intent, as every kind of ‘mens rea’, is a mental fact, the evidence usually becomes a convincing implication from the behavior of the defendant in perspective (Emanuel, 2007). Basically, the case of a violent rape assault on a woman provides no room for doubt about the necessary wrongful intent. In fact, even the more forceful evidence needed for ‘specific intent’ to rap, not only wrongful intent, is amply clarified in these cases. Yet, if ‘mens rea’ is not necessary, the forcefulness of the rape assault still provides no space for doubt about its insistent moral crime (Emanuel, 2007). Hence, major problems about ‘mens rea’ in rape trials, if necessary, surface only from such real situations where there is a questionable doubt about the victim’s unclear behavior with regard to consent. This ‘unclear’ behavior could form a major evidentiary ground to validate a judge’s directive to the jury regarding the justification of reasonable and good faith error of detail (Allen, 2013). If effective, such defense forms a reasonable doubt with regard to the wrongful intent of the defendant required for a successful trial. Actus Reus and Mens Rea on Manslaughter The ‘actus reus’ for manslaughter and murder is similar. The distinction between the two offenses is in the ‘mens rea’. The ‘mens rea’ for manslaughter is composed of ‘mens rea’ with regard to the unlawful action itself. The suspect does not have to understand the danger of inflicting harm. Provided that the reasonable individual in his/her position would have thus understood, this is adequate ‘mens rea’ (Clarkson, 2005). The description of manslaughter varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The law commonly distinguishes between degrees of criminal liability according to state of mind, or ‘mens rea’, or the situations under which the slaughter took place, called mitigating factors (Brody & Acker, 2011). Manslaughter is generally divided into two separate groups: involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter takes place when the suspect takes the life of another with ‘mens rea’ or a motive to kill or inflict serious physical harm. Involuntary manslaughter emerges where the defendant did not plan or intentionally bring about death or severe harm but brought about the death of another person due to criminal negligence or recklessness (LaFave, 2006). In view of this, recklessness is identified as a clear neglect for the risks of a specific circumstance. A case in point of this would be dropping a rock off a building, falling on the head of a person, causing death or severe injury. Since the motive is not to slaughter the victim, but only to drop the rock, the ‘mens rea’ necessary for murder is not present since the act is not intended at any single individual (Allen, 2013). No Punishment for Criminal Thoughts In the legal institution of the West, the consensus between ‘mens rea’ or criminal intent and ‘actus reus’ or criminal acts is fundamentally the leading material component in establishing the guilt of the defendant and in deciding his/her punishment (Ren, 1997, 87): Indeed, to make a complete crime cognizable by human laws, there must be both a will and an act… [in] all temporal jurisdictions. [A]n overt act… is necessary in order to demonstrate the depravity of the will, before the man is liable for punishment… [A] vicious will without a vicious act is no civil crime. According to the above statement, the law “does not punish mere criminal thoughts” (Ren, 1997, 87); the criminal justice system does not punish individuals for their criminal thoughts by itself but only for clear act attended by such criminal thoughts. Attempt is a developing crime focused on the preliminary phases of criminal act. All developing crimes or ‘inchoate offenses’ can only be indicted in relation to some other crimes (Ren, 1997, 87-88). This is to absolve those planning to perpetrate crimes, but action intended to perpetrate a crime is acknowledged as similarly culpable if it were unsuccessful in achieving its goal. A person who attempts to commit a crime but was unsuccessful is as morally guilty as the person who commits a crime effectively. The problem for the criminal justice system is on what level to consider an act as criminal (Brody & Acker, 2011). The only logical explanation for not punishing for an attempt a person who believes s/he is perpetrating an offense that is actually absent or unreal is that to punish him/her would be to punish for thoughts by itself. Reasons Law Requires Mens Rea Generally, the mental prerequisites necessary for conviction of a crime is important relative, for example, to the mental prerequisites for culpability in tort law (Clarkson, 2005). The charging of criminal culpability necessitates ‘mens rea’, such as consciousness of not just one’s own actions but also the presence of the pertinent situations and the likelihood that adverse consequences can arise from the action. Usually, ‘mens rea’ is regarded by attorneys as a prerequisite based on justice-based concerns, specifically, the unfairness of indicting an individual without ‘mens rea’. In criminal law, ‘mens rea’ is seen as one of the requisite components of certain crimes (Brody & Acker, 2011). Hence, in jurisdictions practicing due process, there should be a guilty act or ‘actus reus’, attended by a certain degree of ‘mens rea’ to establish the offense by which the suspect is convicted. In civil law, it is generally not required to substantiate a subjective mental aspect to determine culpability for tort or violation of contract, for instance. Yet, if a tort is deliberately perpetrated or a contract is purposefully violated, this intent could expand the scope of liability (Clarkson, 2005). Numerous major crimes call for evidence of ‘mens rea’ before an individual can be indicted. Basically, the prosecution should verify not merely that the defendant perpetrated the crime but that s/he committed it having knowledge that it was unlawful; that their action was committed with a motive to perpetrate the offense (Emanuel, 2007). A saying very popular to law students is “a person cannot be convicted and punished in a proceeding of a criminal nature unless it can be shown that he had a guilty mind” (Wechsler, 1962, 36). Regulatory or statutory crimes demand no evidence of ‘mens rea’. However, it is very difficult to prove ‘mens rea’ beyond reasonable doubt. This is more difficult to establish than ‘actus reus’—it needs persuasive proof about something that is fundamentally psychological in nature (Brooks, 1985). Exactly what ‘state of mind’ or intent the prosecution should establish differs, depending on the offense. Conclusions The concepts of ‘actus reus’ and ‘mens rea’ are valuable to the criminal justice system in establishing the criminal culpability of defendants. However, proving ‘mens rea’ or criminal intent or guilty thought is very difficult to prove. There are three mental states which independently or in unison can comprise the required ‘mens rea’ for a crime—negligence, recklessness, and intention. References Allen, M. (2013). Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Brody, D. & Acker, J. (2011). Criminal Law. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. Brooks, A. (1985). The Merits of Abolishing the Insanity Defense. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 477(1), 125-136. Clarkson, C. (2005). Understanding Criminal Law. New York: Sweet & Maxwell. Emanuel, S. (2007). Criminal Law. New York: Aspen Publishers Online. LaFave, W. (2006). Modern Criminal Law: Cases, Comments, and Questions. New York: Thomson/West. Ren, X. (1997). Tradition of the Law and Law of the Tradition: Law, State, and Social Control in China. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Wechsler, H. (1962). On Culpability and Crime: The Treatment of Mens Rea in the Model Penal Code. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 339(1), 24-41. Read More