Reas Vs Mens Rea

Criminal conduct is made up of two aspects mens rea and actus rea. When it comes to committing a crime, a person’s intent and the act they took to violate the law is important. In this essay I will be looking at the way actus rea and mens rea affect criminal prosecution and criminal liability. There are three aspects of a crime (1) the criminal act, which is also known as actus reus, (2) a culpable mental state or mens rea, and (3) a concurrence of the two. The criminal act or actus reus literally translates to “a guilty act” or a violation of the law. When it comes to criminal law the word act means movement, an Arizona law defines act as bodily movement. For example if someone hires an individual to commit a murder the law states that

Therefore juries often use interference, which is a conclusion that is being made by the other facts in the case and the defendant’s actions. Another rule that is used to determine a defendant’s guilt is the deadly weapon doctrine. This rule is used in murder trials when juries conclude on what a defendant’s specific intent was in murdering someone. According to the Model Penal Code it is very important to know that mens rea is not the same thing as a motive. Mens rea is a person’s state of mind at the time of the crime where as motive is the reason why an individual committed a

California the defense of ignorance is brought up before the Supreme Court. Lambert was convicted of a felony in the state of California; the city of Los Angeles makes it a crime if a person who has been committed of a crime stays in the city for more than five days without registering. Lambert appealed claiming that she did not have knowledge of the law and that she was not made aware of such a law. Lambert claimed that the legislation violated the Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the grounds that it did violate the due process clause even though the Courts did recognize that “ignorance is not an excuse” but in this case the defendant was not aware of the law. I’m a little mixed when it comes to the courts decision. I don’t think ignorance could be used as an excuse what if a person convicted of a rape decides to claim that they didn’t know about the registry. I feel the proper solution would be when a person is released from prison the state has the responsibility to tell that person if they need to register or not just to make sure that the individual is aware of the