Introduction
This paper provides an understanding of the different ingredients of actus reus in criminal law. It covers relevant literature as well as analyzes case law on the concept.
What is actus reus?
An individual in the normal course of events cannot be accused or be held liable for a serious criminal offence unless two elements are present, firstly, the mens rea or guilty mind and the physical element or actus reus. This principle is often stated in the form of a Latin maxim; actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea which means that a person cannot be held guilty of a crime unless his mind is also guilty.
The actus reus is not just the conduct of the person itself, it includes all other elements and any surrounding circumstances of the offence apart from the mental element. It must be proved that the act which is forbidden by law is caused by the conduct of the person. The law will not interfere or punish people for having evil intentions alone. A crime is only committed when there is some physical manifestation of such intentions, for example an agreement to commit a crime is held to be a physical manifestation of an evil intention and is hence punishable as it constitutes the actus reus of conspiracy. The word actus means a deed or a physical act, while reus means “forbidden by law”.
The element of actus reus can be said to have mainly three parts, (i) the act which is performed by the individual, usually termed as conduct, (ii) The consequences or results of such an act in the surrounding circumstances which is termed as injury and (iii) the act is not permitted by law. Thus the ingredients of actus reus can be said to be broadly divided into voluntary acts, behavior, consequences and circumstances.
These ...
... middle of paper ...
...n, it is possible to say that the principle of actus reus is well established in law. Although there are grey areas in matters such as whether a person’s conduct is held to be an act or omission, the ingredients of actus reus such as the requirement of a voluntary act and causation are well settled and are covered sufficiently in the above sections of this paper.
Works Cited
C.M.V Clarkson and H.M Keating, Criminal Law, 4th Edition (Sweet and Maxwell)
A.P Simester & G.R Sullivan, Criminal Law-Theory and Doctrine, 3rd Edition (2007) (Hart Publishing)
Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law-Texts, Cases and Materials, 3rd Edition (Oxford University Press)
K.I Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 11th Edition (LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa)
Card, Cross and Jones, Criminal Law, 18th Edition (Oxford University Press)
Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law, 9th Edition (Butterworths)
''Why blameworthiness is the wrong question'' is an informative article that exposes the reasons why the concept blameworthiness is the wrong word to ask in the legal argot. Eagleman proposes to replace the term with the word modifiability, which is a forward-looking term that will help build a social policy based on evidence. The relationship between human biology and the concept of free will, the reasons why blameworthiness is not the correct question and a forward-looking, brain-compatible legal system are the main points the author arguments on. I. Human biology and the concept of free will. Legal systems rest on the assumption that human beings have free will and are completely capable of making their own decisions.
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...
Actus Reus of Murder When a man of sound memory over the age of discretion unlawfully kills
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 term ‘Actus Reus’ is Latin, and translates to ‘the guilty act’ , it refers to the thing that the offender did that wa...
In order to understand how the criminal justice system will handle or process this crime it is imperative that one understands how the criminal justice system looks at procession of a controlled...
It is no surprise as to why the case Riggs v Palmer is such a renowned case, for this case tests the importance of many of the philosophers’ theories, especially on the validity of certain laws and the conflict between law and morality. This hard case has been used as a reference for many court decisions over the years and will be most likely used in the future as well. An inference can be made based on this case and the legal conflicts and issues that the judges faced when reaching their verdict. Those who commit the crime should not be rewarded by attaining what motivated them in the first place as the fruit of their crime, and in the event that such a crime occurs, judges must interpret the law in the same manner that the law makers intended
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
Mens rea refers to the mental element involved in committing a crime and is concerned with the guilty mind of the defendant. Both intent and recklessness are categories of mens rea that are different and have different levels of culpability. Intention in criminal law is when an individual consciously decides to behave in a particular manner to achieve a certain desired result and in doing so commits a crime. It is the highest form of mens rea as someone who intentionally sets out to commit a criminal offence is typically more culpable then an individual who has behaved in a reckless manner, which has consequently resulted in a crime. Intention can be further split into two categories: direct intention and oblique intention.
The subjective definition of recklessness is where the defendant takes an unjustified risk and was actually aware of the consequence, has been seen here to be the best approach when understanding reckless behaviour. Although within criminal law, the term recklessness has a second definition which is known to be objective recklessness. The objective definition argues that a person is reckless when the defendants take an unjustified risk and was actually aware or should have been aware. This essay establishes that the subjective definition of recklessness takes into account the individuals characteristics, the mental state of a defendant but also help to understand certain cases like rape. It has also been established here that elements of the objective definition is an extension from the subjective definition of recklessness, which therefore allows the subjective side holds greater weight and in terms of looking at if the reasonable man may have be incapable of foreseeing a consequence. Thus, it has been argued here that the subjective definition of recklessness in criminal law must be maintained.
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.
Attempted murder, involved the voluntary act of Jack pointing a gun and firing it (act) at Bert that resulted in (causation) death of Pratt (social harm), which proves the elements of actus reus. ...
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 relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
HIS essay presents the key issues surrounding the concepts of partiality and impartiality in ethical theory. In particular, it argues that the tension between partiality and impartiality has not been resolved. Consequently, it concludes that the request for moral agents to be impartial does demand too much. To achieve this goal, this essay consists of four main parts. The first part gives an overview of the concept of impartiality. The second deals with the necessity of impartiality in consequentialism and deontology. The third deals with the tension between partiality and impartiality (Demandingness Objection). Specifically, how a duty to perform supererogatory acts follows from impartial morality. The fourth and final part refutes positions that maintain that partiality and impartiality have been reconciled. Therefore, it demonstrates that current ethical theories that demand moral agents to behave in a strictly impartial fashion are unreasonable.