In Scots Law, wicked intention is one of the categories of mens rea, which is the mental element necessary for the particular crime that was committed. Wicked intention has been outstanding in the crime of murder in Scotland and can also be found in some crimes of assault. This is just one element of mentes reae, there are of course others for different criminal offences. In common law, these include intention, recklessness, wicked recklessness and also, to a lesser extent, negligence.
In order to be convicted on a criminal charge, proof is required of three things; actus reus, mens rea and causation. The accused must have the criminal state of mind relevant to the crime he is accused of. Intention is a far more blameworthy aspect than recklessness,
…show more content…
This is a completely separate and alternative aspect of mens rea, and it is assumed that the accused does not have an intention to kill. There is a clear difference between the mens rea of ‘recklessness’ for crimes other than murder, and ‘wicked recklessness’ for murder. This was determined in Cawthorne v HMA when the accused fired a high-velocity rifle through a wooden door into a room where four people were situated in an attempt to escape from him. He made no attempt to stop any danger from happening but fired five shots at a height where it may have been foreseeable that he could cause serious harm or injury. On the assumption that this intent was only to frighten these people and not to kill them, the appeal court still determined that the accused had shown the wicked recklessness necessary for murder. In this case it was held that the mens rea of murder, or attempted murder, could be proved by such recklessness that to show that the accused was regardless of the consequences of his actions, that he was completely indifferent to whether anyone died as a result of his actions. Cawthorne is now a clear precedent both that the mens rea of criminal attempt Is exactly the same as that for the completed crime and that wicked recklessness is a separate form of the mens rea of murder. Wicked recklessness is described by Gordon as recklessness which is “so gross that it indicates a state of mind of a deliberate
Causation is the cause of death, and in criminal law it is the connecting of conduct and physiological behaviour with a resulting effect, typically a serious injury or death. The analysis of the actus rea and mens read of the accused will assist the investigators in pinpointing the causation of the murder. In criminal law it is absolutely necessary to prove causation in order to convict an individual for first degree murder.
Actus Reus: It was never unclear if the accused was responsible for the act occurring. There were several eye witness testimonies placing her as the offender which was backed up by CCTV footage from a camera in the lane. Furthermore, at the beginning of the trial the offender pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of constructive manslaughter and that it was caused by reckless driving on her behalf. By claiming manslaughter the offender immediately takes full responsibility for the act regardless of what charge they are handed.
Gross negligence murder has been alluded as an automatic homicide, in which the defendant has no aims to enjoy a wrongdoing. The defendant is past all sensible uncertainty the reason for the passing; in any case, he neither expects to bring about physical damage or demise to anybody nor any grim plans to execute an individual. This mirrors that the defendant is said to not have the expectation for homicide. In legitimate terms, the defendant has no proposition of homicide. Gross negligence homicide has four crucial components, which are recorded as underneath:
Incompetency goes to reliability in all that is essential to make up a reasonably safe person. Rush v. McDonnell, 106 So. 175, 177 (1925). The incompetence of a driver is measured by the driver’s demonstrated ability to properly drive a vehicle. Halford v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC, 921 So. 2d 409, 414 (Ala. 2005). One who is habitually negligent may, on that account, be incompetent. Crotwell v. Cowan, 184 So. 195, 199 (1938). To see if someone is habitually negligent, the court should take into account his youth and other pertinent evidence relating to his character, habits, and activities. Keller v. Kiedinger, 389 So. 2d 129, 137 (Ala. 1980). Driving
In addition, the defendant’s erratic behavior that raised suspicion could also be used to prove the burden of proof. The fact that the defendant indicated that his wife was deceased, while she was still alive, can demonstrate that the murder was planned. Moreover, the defendant’s strategic travel to San Diego after Laci’s Peterson body and fetus were discovered and the change in the defendant’s physical appearance can be used to allude to the proof of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Also, the items removed from the defendant’s car during the traffic stop, specifically the thousands of dollars in cash, can indicate that the defendant planned to flee the country at some point during his trip to San Diego. Lastly, the chain of events that took place during the period of the victim’s disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the defendant’s secret lover becoming a key witness, was used to strengthen the circumstantial evidence.
“Whether a killer acted with the deliberation and premeditation required for first degree murder can only be determined on a case by case basis. The need for deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the perpetrator must contemplate at length or plan far ahead of the murder.”
It is considered to be a deliberate act on the defendant’s part to cause the harm that occurs. In my opinion the, this was not intentional. McDonald was not wilful in trying to harm Liebeck. Intentionally trying to hurt Liebeck would mean loss of revenue and reputation for McDonald and I firmly believe that is a risk they were not willing to take hence, why it is not intentional tort case. Also, to act with intent would mean to see someone coming and hurting them in the process. This was not the case for Liebeck, she bought the coffee and went back to the car and then the coffee
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.
Evil is a destructive force; it causes harm to those who embrace it and their victims. In Shakespeare's Macbeth, the protagonist Macbeth and Lady Macbeth fall into the hands of evil. Evil is what drives people to commit unnatural actions of destruction. Macbeth succumbs to evil through his fatal flaw, greed, and it causes him to disrupt the chain of being. When Macbeth willingly murders, massacres, lies and deceives, he loses his heath and sanity. Evil corrupts everything it touches, and Macbeth decides to be evil's servant. But, when Macbeth embraces evil, it corrupts him, and it ultimately destroys him as well. Lady Macbeth is a victim of Macbeth's fatal flaw, since she is drawn in, and becomes greedy for power herself. She pushes Macbeth into destruction when she adds the small touch that plunges Macbeth into a chain of murder, destruction, and lying followed by the loss of their sanity and health. After Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are well into the depths of corruption and greed, it is clearly seen that their guilt will haunt them for the rest of their lives. The harm they have caused others will be returned to them as revenge and they have lost their sanity in order to gain power. The fate of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth clearly illustrates that to embrace evil is to negate our own need for order and well being.
Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides that the person alleging the commission of a crime must proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person(s) possessed mens rea, if the court is to hold a criminal liability against the accused. In the case of People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) or what has come to be famously known as the O.J. Simpson Trial is a classical illustration of how highly the U.S. criminal justice regards the beyond reasonable doubt principle.
The play "Macbeth" by Shakespeare is jam-packed with malfeasance and darkness. All actions taken by Macbeth, his wife, Lady Macbeth, the witches and Hecate have immoral intentions and/or evil outcomes. An example of such is Lady Macbeth’s dark intentions to quicken Macbeth’s crowning, fuelled Macbeth’s "vaulting ambition[s]" (Act 1 scene 7 line 27) to murder anyone or anything that stood in his path of a long reign.
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).
The next thing which comes is the criminal intent which talks about the necessary intent for a commission of crime.