Both “male in se” and “mala prohibita” are legal terms associated with classification on crime. ‘Mala prohibita’ crimes are not inherently evil as they are not necessarily wrong. These crimes are illegal only because it is prohibited by the laws of a society. ‘Mala prohibita’ crimes usually incur less serious punishment because they are criminalized acts by statute to help regulate general behaviors in a society so are often considered “victimless”. Examples of “mala prohibita” crimes include, jaywalking, parking violations and gambling. ‘Mala in se’ crimes are considered wrong in and of themselves and therefore do not require justification to prove their wrongness. These crimes tend to have a much higher punishment as they are not only …show more content…
However, in our time more weight is being placed on the defendant's history, intention, whether the crime was misdemeanor or felony and to what degree, and so on. This on causing a blur between the distinctive line that once separated the two crimes. Actus reus can be best described as a criminal act. The term is a Latin phrase meaning "the guilty act." By definition, Actus Reus” means that there must be a physical action or movement. Therefore, it is the physical act that makes a person liable for a crime. This physical act is required for the commission of a crime, because it is not possible to find a person guilty of thinking criminal thoughts or wishing for a crime to take place. Mens rea is Latin for a guilty mind, the specific mental state of the person at the time of the crime. Therefore, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the Mens rea, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element. This begins to stem the belief that an act alone cannot create criminal liability unless it is also accompanied by a guilty state of mind. For example, the act of murder requires the physical action of killing someone but is also accompanied with a malicious mind during the
Men rea is used in determining whether an act is considered a crime, and is applied to an act if there is indication that the act was committed with intent or knowledge or a degree of recklessness. The mens era of murder is having malice intentions prior to killing someone, so the person has an intent to murder. The argument that helps support that Martineau did not have the mens rea for murder, is the fact that he did not shoot the couple, and instead it was his friend Tremblay who had fried the pellet pistol. Martineau cannot be held accountable since he had no malice intentions to kill the couple, his intentions were strictly centred with the break and enter, there is no evidence
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...
The “mens rea” of first degree murder is that the person, with time and intent, planned out or premeditated the murder. The “actus reas” of first degree murder is the actual act of committing the murder after planning it (Lippman, 2006).
The elements that is necessary under the Model Penal Code to establish the commission of a crime consists of mens reas and actus reus. Mens reas is the required mental state necessary to establish a crime; whereas actus reus is any act that is illegal or the failure to that results in a crime (Wallace & Roberson, 2008). Therefore, an alleged criminal cannot be found guilty of a crime if the prosecutor cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender acted in an illegal manner and had the mental state required necessary in establishing a crime. The establishment of actus reus was created in order to prevent people from being punished for their thoughts. A person is only culpable when intent can be proven and then acted on.
...e jury or judge may fail to realize is that those who suffer a mental disorder lack free will with some of their actions. The most common characteristic seen in those who have mental disorders is the lack of empathy. This lack of empathy plays a role in how gruesome the crimes may be. According to the “men’s rea” no one can be found guilty of a crime if they had no knowledge that their actions were wrong. With the mens rea, the defendant is not required to feel guilty but to know their actions were wrong. If a person cognitive activity is abnormal and they lack empathy due to their mental state how can they be found guilty before the law.
The Mens Rea of a crime refers to the mental element or the state of
An example of actus reus with mens rea would be a teenager has been writing in a journal that he wants to kill certain kids from his school.
Only an act that is defined by the validly passed laws of the nation state in which it occurred so that punishment should follow from the behaviour
When the definition of a crime consists of only the description of a particular act, without reference to the intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence, we ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. This intent is deemed to be a general criminal intent. When the definition refers to defendant's intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence, the crime is deemed to be one of specific intent. The essential distinction is thus between the intent to commit an act (general intent) and the intent to produce a consequence or specific intent. ( Keiter, Mitchell, 1997). These terms describe the marriage between an offense's mental status and its physical actions. Physical actions, often in terms of conduct and circumstances and the ensuing results are the building blocks of the criminal statutes. Vehicular homicide where alcohol is a factor is a prime example. First, driving the car is the action or conduct. Being under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicate is the attended circumstance and lastly causing the death of another person is the result of the conduct. The offender's mental status is often used in defining elements of the offense. These could include purposely, recklessly or knowingly engaging in behavior that could include criminal negligence. Mental states do not exist in
Actus reus refers to a criminal act that occurs or happens as a result of voluntary bodily movement (Dressler, 2015). In other words, it is a physical activity that harms an individual, or damage properties. Every physical activity such as murder to the destruction of public properties qualifies to be an actus reus. It consists of all the elements of a crime other than the state of mind of the offender. Apparently, it may consist of conduct, the state of affairs, result, or an omission.
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.
For most of the crimes we must consider two elements of crime which are the Mens rea and the Actus reus. To establish criminal behaviour, the Actus reus and the Mens rea must occur at the same time. To explain this further an example of this is, imagine that person A shoots person B, where person A is intending to kill person B but completely misses. However, later person A accidentally runs over person B, where person B’s life is taken away. Person A is not found guilty of person B’s death.
The actus reus of the offence usually makes it clear whether the offence is capable of being committed by omission. For example, in burglary the accused must “enter” a building as a trespasser, thus this requires a positive act. Most of the leading cases relate to offences of murder and manslaughter buy offences such as arson, assault, battery and some statutory offences such as failing to provide a specimen of breath, can all be committed by omission[ J Clough & others, Nutshell Criminal Law (9th edn Sweet & Maxwell, London 2011) 3
A defence in criminal law arises when conditions exist to negate specific elements of the crime: the actus reus when actions are involuntary, the mens rea when the defendant is unaware of the significance of their conduct, or both. These defences will mitigate or eliminate liability from a criminal offence. Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility are examples of said defences. They each share characteristics but can be distinguished in their scope and application.
The principles of necessity and compulsion are often used as a defense for murder or other crimes. It is, however, apparent that the application of these principles within the laws and the application of South Africa and England differ as the underlying principles remain the same. I will be analyzing cases from both countries that have used necessity and compulsion as a defence and make recommendations of how this principle is used as an excuse to criminal liability in certain circumstances with regards to the laws of each country.