The Model Penal Code Section 2.01

In the Model Penal Code, section 2.01 discussed are the requirements of voluntary act; Omission as Basis of Liability; and Possesion as an Act. Mainly focusing on the “Voluntary” and “Involunatary” sections, first, stated is that “A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. Secondly, stated are acts that are not voluntary wihin the meaning of this section following as, “A reflex or convulsion; a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep; conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion; and a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.” These requirements correspond with the Latin term “Actus Reus” which is a term used to describe a criminal act. Actus Reus is the wrongful dead that compromises the physical components of a crime. There is a fundamental principle stated in the case textbook that criminal liability always entails an “Actus Reus”, that is, “the commission of some voluntary act that is prohibited by law.”

There is the question of what acts are voluntary. The Model Penal Code defines an “act” as a “bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary” (Section 1.13 (2).) Even with this definition it makes distinguishing between whether an act “involuntary” or “voluntary” difficult in certain cases. The rationale of the voluntary act requirement and the reason for excluding criminal liability in the absence of voluntary action is explained in the case book as it being fundamental that a civilized society does not punish for thoughts alone. It continues to say that people whose involuntary move...

... middle of paper ...

...ct she should not have kept any weapons in her home. Another example is someone with epilepsy who has a seizure while driving on a highway. A person’s movement during an epileptic seizure are indisputably involuntary. However, if you are aware of this medical condition, it can be suggested that you have someone else drive, so that you are safe and other drivers on the road are safe as well.

Consider People v. Decina, this defendant knew he was subject to epilictic attacks and seizures that might strike at any given moment. He also knew that a moving motor vehicle uncontrolled on public highways is highly dangerous. With this knowledge, and without anyone accompanying him, he deliberately took a chance by making a conscious choise of a course of action, in disregard of the consequences which he knew might follow from the conscious act, which in this case did ensue.