Mens Rea

Mens and Actus Rea Arguably, an alleged perpetrator is feasible for a conviction in such a case where the perpetrators lack the required mens rea, but there is admissible evidence that perpetrator has engaged in the actus rea. Supportively, the pre-stated accords to various reasons, which this section seeks to enlighten. To start with, the perpetrator is feasible for a conviction based on the second basic form of the unintentional behavior of the men's rea. Notably, according to Varn & Chandola (2010), a major form relating to the unintentional behavior of mens rea that is relevant to the contextual scenario is the mistake of law. Varn & Chandola (2010) enlightens that, mens rea revolves around two major aspects intentional and unintentional behavior. According to Varn & Chandola (2010) intentional behavior is termed as a criminal while as, on the other hand, the unintentional harmful behavior will take two forms- mistake of law and mistake in fact. Narrowing down to the mistake of fact, Varn & Chandola(2010) puts across that, this form

Hoge (2016) enlightens that, a defendant is termed to have questionable competency if either the court or the prosecutor raises concern where the defendant seems to be suffering from mental illness. Besides, in relation to the pre-stated, Hoge(2016) further enlightens that it is mandatory for the defendant not only to be able to particularly communicate with their attorney but also understand charges against them. Therefore, in agreement with Hoge (2016) where the defendant has questionable competency hence meaning that the defendant is suffering from a mental illness, the defendant will, in turn, lack the capability to understand charges against him or her. As such, the court, therefore, should not hold the defendant to the standard sentencing guidelines (Hoge,