To be criminally liable of any crime in the UK, a jury has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. The Actus Reus is the physical element of the crime; it is Latin for ‘guilty act’. The defendant’s act must be voluntary, for criminal liability to be proven. The Mens Rea is Latin for guilty mind; it is the most difficult to prove of the two. To be pronounced guilty of a crime, the Mens Rea requires that the defendant planned, his or her actions before enacting them. There are two types of Mens Rea; direct intention and oblique intention. Direct intention ‘corresponds with everyday definition of intention, and applies where the accused actually wants the result that occurs, and sets out to achieve it’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 59). Oblique intention is when the ‘accused did not desire a particular result but in acting he or she did realise that it might occur’ (Elliot & Quinn, 2010: 60). I will illustrate, by using relevant case law, the difference between direct intention and oblique intention. Oblique intention requires foresight of the consequences, finding oblique intent is difficult; as a result, there have been a number of cases, which have helped in clarifying the law of intention. In the case of R v Maloney (1985), the defendant and the Victim (stepfather of the defendant), were drunk when they decided to have a contest of who can load and fire a gun more quickly. The defendant shot the victim without aiming as the victim taunted the defendant to fire the gun. Lord Bridge held ‘Foresight of consequences as an element bearing on the issue of intention in murder... belongs, not to the substantive law but the law of evidence’ (Molan, 2001: 95), oblique intent here is held ... ... middle of paper ... ...ing Limited. • Elliot, C & Quinn, F (2010a), Criminal law. Great Britain. Pearson Education Limited. • Herring, J (2010b), Text cases and Materials. Great Britain. Oxford University Press. • Parliament UK (1997-1998), Judgements Regina v Woolin, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd980722/wool.htm. Accessed at 06/11/10. • Law Reform Commission (2001), Consultation Paper on Homicide: The mental element in murder. http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/consultation%20papers/cpMentalElementinMurder.pdf. Accessed at 6/11/10. • Criminal law and procedure cases ( No date). Regina v Maloney. http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/la205_criminal_law_and_procedure_1/cases/R_v_Moloney.html. Accessed at 6/11/10. • Sixthformlaw (No date). Cases- Murder- Mens Rea. http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_32_murder_mens.htm. Accessed at 6/11/10
DeVoe, D., 2003-2004, ‘The mental health and the criminal justice conundrum: Solutions’, Capital University Law Review, 2003-2004, pp. 925-933.
15) Grinfeld, M. J. "Executing the Mentally Ill: Who is Really Insane?" Psychiatric Times. Vol. XV, Issue 5. May, 1998. , Discussion of the legal aspects of criminal insanity and violence research.
... Farrell, R. (1977b) 'Normal homicides and the law', American Sociological Review, KLLII, pp. 16-32
First, the first element of a crime is Mens rea. “The mental element is known as the mens rea, or mental state, of the defendant.” (Hames & Ekern, 2009) The prosecution lawyers try to prove if the defendant has knowledge of the crime. What was the defendant’s mental state? Were they aware of the effect of the crime, did the defendant plan the crime, o...
Miller, Paul D. "The Philosophy of Murder." Schaeffers Ghost. N.p., 4 Sept. 2012. Web. 29 Apr.
Now that we have an understanding about how intentions are formed in Harman, it is necessary to discuss what he thinks makes an intention an intention. According to Harman, an "‘act’ of forming an intention is always a means to end" (Harman, 157). Stated another way, an intention is always a way of doing something else. This feature of intentions is what leads Harman to conclude that intentions are self-referential, in the sense that one must intend to intend. That is, one always forms an intention intentionally. An important feature of intentions that Harman derives from this observation is that intentions are a means of guaranteeing that an agent will act in a particular way.
"Criminal Procedure and the Supreme Court: A Guide to the Major Decisions on ..." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
" Mental Illness and the Death Penalty." American Civil Liberties Union. May 5, 2009. Web. 04
"Mental Illness on Death Row." Death Penalty Focus. Death Penalty Focus, 05 May 2009. Web. 10 Dec 2013. .
Maguire, M., Morgan, R., and Reiner, R. (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 5th ed. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
The prevalence of mental disorder in offenders convicted of serious violence, examine their social and clinical characteristics, and compare them with patients convicted of homicide. We examined a national clinical survey of all people convicted of serious violence in England and Wales in 2004. Mental disorder was measured by contact with mental health services within 12 months of the offense. For instance, the mentally ill are not exempt from the death penalty unless they are found
A general intent is the most usual modus operandi for most of the misconducts. Under the general aim, the prosecution requires proving that the offender intended to commit an act in question (Herring, 2014). They are those offenses that have no particular mens rea component in them. The defendant’s act’s results are irrelevant in a general intent crime.
Morgan, R., Maguire, M. And Reiner, R. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
A crime consists of an actus reus and a mens rea, in order to obtain a conviction of a criminal charge there must be a concurrence between the actus reus and mens rea. The elements of a criminal act (actus reus) are: act, cause, social harm or omission condemned under a criminal statute (Lippman, 2012). The elements of mens rea: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently (Lippman, 2012). Attempted murder is the failed attempt to kill another human being deliberately, intentionally or recklessly (USLegal, 2014). “Georgia Code Title 16, Section 16-4-1: A person commits the offense of criminal attempt when, with intent to commit a specific crime, he performs any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that crime. Section 16-4-2: A person may be convicted of the offense of criminal attempt if the crime attempted was actually committed in pursuance of the attempt but may not be convicted of both the criminal attempt and the completed crime….” (Young, 2014, para. 1-2).
Mens rea known as the “mental element” of an offence has long been regarded as a crucial factor in criminal law, aiming to ensure that only those who are blameworthy are punished for crimes thus inputting the role of fairness into the criminal law system. H.L.A Hart agreed with this fairness rationale arguing that it would be wrong to convict and punish anyone who had not been given ‘a fair opportunity’ to exercise the capacity for ‘doing what the law requires and abstaining from what it forbids.’ “The general rule is that no crime can be committed unless there is mens rea.” But this is departed from when creating strict liability offences.