Thus, an Olympic swimmer may be considered a shameful coward by the community, or worse, because she did not save a child who drowned in the neighbor`s pool, but she is not a criminal. After all, while thoughts can never be considered a crime, spoken words can. This is an important exception to the general rule that only physical acts are criminal: some acts, such as conspiracy and advertising, have actus reus, even if no physical crime has been committed (e.g., conspiracy to commit murder). Sometimes different criminal intentions support the different elements of a crime. If a crime requires more than one criminal intent, each criminal intent must be proven beyond a doubt for each element. Mens rea means “guilty spirit” in Latin, and this element refers to the state of mind of the accused when he committed the crime. For example, to obtain a conviction for murder, the prosecution must not only prove that the accused committed the crime, but that he or she intended to do so. If this cannot be proved, either because the defendant was unable to pursue criminal intent or because he or she was unaware of the situation, he or she may still be convicted (for example, of manslaughter), but it is unlikely that the sentence will be as severe. In criminal law, all crimes can be broken down into different elements that, in order to be convicted, must then be proven beyond doubt in a court of law. Most crimes require the presence of three elements: an indictable act (actus reus), a criminal intent (mens rea) and a correspondence between the two preceding elements. Some crimes require a fourth element known as causation. As already mentioned, causalityA necessary element for crimes that indicate a bad outcome; The defendant must cause the damage.
and damageAn element of crimes with poor results; Harm is the violation specified in the statute or case in jurisdictions that permit common law offences. may also be an element of a criminal offence if the offence requires a poor outcome. Essentially, if a breach is required by law or if the matter is in a jurisdiction that permits common law offences, the defendant must cause the necessary harm. Many incidents occur when the accused is technically responsible for circumstances that cause harm, but it would be unfair to hold the accused criminally responsible. Therefore, causation should not be rigidly determined in all cases, and the trier of fact must conduct an analysis that promotes fairness. This section examines the factual and legal causal link, as well as the situations in which the accused may be excluded from criminal responsibility. Criminal intent is an important element because it is often a factor taken into account when classifying crimes. The three common law criminal intent are malice, that is, intent to kill, specific intent and general intent.
Specific intent is the intention to achieve a certain result, a higher level of awareness than necessary to commit the criminal act, or knowledge of what knowledge is that a criminal act is illegal. The general intent is the intent to commit the act and can often lead to a finding of criminal intent based on the evidence of the crime. The motive should not be confused with or replace intent. The motive is the reason why the accused develops criminal intent. An omission can only be punishable if the law imposes a duty to act (N.Y. Penal Law, 2010). This legal duty to act becomes part of the crime, and the prosecution must prove it beyond a doubt, as well as proof of the accused`s inaction in the circumstances. Omission or omission is punishable only in three situations: (1) if there is a law that creates a legal duty to act, (2) if there is a contract that creates a legal obligation to act, or (3) if there is a special relationship between the parties that creates a legal duty to act. The legal obligations to act vary from state to state and state to state.
Look at the example in section 4 “Knowingly Example” where Victor shoots a crowd of subway passengers and kills Monica. Change the example and imagine that the metro has only three passengers. Victor fires lightly between them, but the bullet bounces off one of the seats and hits Monica, who kills her. Victor prefers to act recklessly than knowingly in this situation. Victor`s knowledge and awareness of the risk of injury or death when firing a firearm into a three-passenger subway car is likely considerable. A reasonable and law-abiding person would probably not take this action in these circumstances. Thus, in this case, Victor could be charged with an inferior form of criminal murder such as manslaughter. The difference between murder and manslaughter is discussed in detail in Chapter 9, Criminal Homicide. Under U.S. law, every crime is considered to consist of three or four fundamental elements. These are: Another element of most crimes is the requirement that the crime and criminal intent exist simultaneously.
California Criminal Jury Instructions No. 252, accessed February 14, 2011, www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/200/252.html. This element is called matchingThe requirement that the indictable offence and criminal intent exist at the same time. Simultaneity is rarely an issue in law enforcement, as criminal intent usually generates the physical reaction (offence). However, in rare cases, the indictable offence and intent are separated in time, in which case there is no match and the accused cannot be convicted of a crime. Failure to act may also form the basis of criminal liability. There are a number of defenses available to a defendant in a lawsuit. The following list illustrates some common defenses that individuals rely on: Crimes can be broken down into elements that prosecutors must prove beyond doubt.
Elements of criminal law are set out in criminal statutes or in cases before courts that authorize common law offences. With some exceptions, each offence has at least three elements: an indictable offence, also known as actus reus; criminal intent, also known as mens rea; and the agreement of both. The term behaviour is often used to reflect the criminal act and intentional elements. As the Model Penal Code explains, “`conduct` means an act or omission and the state of mind associated with it” (Model Penal Code, ยง 1.13(5)). Each state and the federal government decide what kind of behavior is criminalized. At common law, there were nine serious crimes (murder, robbery, manslaughter, rape, bestiality, theft, arson, chaos and burglary) and miscellaneous offences (assault, assault, false incarceration, perjury and jury intimidation). Mens rea refers to the mental elements of the defendant`s intention. This is a necessary element, that is, the criminal act must be voluntary or targeted. Mens rea is the mental intention (mental error) or mental state of the accused at the time of the crime, sometimes called a guilty mind.
It comes from the old maxim of obscure origin, “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit reas”, which translates as “the act is guilty only if the mind is guilty”. [3] For example, mens rea of aggravated assault is the intent to commit serious bodily harm. Mens rea is almost always a necessary element to prove that a crime has been committed. [1] [2] The Model Penal Code divides criminal intent into four states of mind, which are listed in order of guilt: intentionallyThe Model Penal Code aims to achieve a certain result., knowingAccording to the Model Penal Code, the accused is aware of the nature of the act and is virtually certain of the consequences., RecklesslyAccording to the Model Penal Code, the accused is aware of a significant risk of injury or damage consciously, and yet unjustifiably and negligentAccording to the Model Criminal Code, the accused is not aware of a substantial risk of injury or harm, but should unjustifiably deviate from the standard of care.
