Error, in fact, means that although your behavior meets the definition of a crime in the objective sense, you acted on the basis of false knowledge. For example, a person may objectively sell drugs, but mistakenly believe that they are just selling a bag of baking soda. As a result, this person probably doesn`t have the mens rea necessary or mental intent under a drug law because they never intended to sell an illegal drug, only baking soda (although few people will believe that you honestly thought baking soda could be sold for that much money). The standard test of criminal responsibility at common law is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, that is, “the act is guilty only if reason is guilty”. [1] As a general rule, a person who acted without intellectual fault is not criminally liable. The exceptions are the so-called strict liability offences. If a person intends to harm, but due to a wrong purpose or other cause, the intent is transferred from a targeted victim to an unintentional victim, the case is considered a matter of transferred intent. [2]: 63-64 In the modern approach, accompanying circumstances sometimes replace traditional concepts of mens rea, indicating the degree of guilt as well as other circumstances. For example, the crime of theft of government property would include, as an accompanying circumstance, the fact that the property belongs to the government, rather than requiring the defendant to actually know that the property belongs to the government. [7] The ground cannot be a defence.
For example, if a person breaks into a laboratory where drugs are tested on animals, the question of guilt is determined by the presence of actus reus, i.e. involuntary entry and property damage, and a mens rea, i.e. the intention to enter and cause the damage. The fact that the person may have had a clearly articulated political motive to protest against such tests has no bearing on responsibility. If the reason is relevant, it may be discussed in the trial portion of the trial when the court determines what sentence, if any, is appropriate. When a law establishes a mental state or a particular offence, the courts generally apply the required state of mind to each element of the crime. Even if a law does not mention a mental state, courts generally require the government to always prove that the defendant possessed a guilty state of mind in committing the crime. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered that federal criminal laws without the requisite mindset “be understood to contain only the mens rea necessary to separate `unlawful conduct from innocent conduct.` There is another category of offences called strict liability crimes. Strict crimes, also known as public service offenses, are offenses that do not require mens rea.
The accused could be convicted solely for committing the crime. Examples of offences that fall under strict liability include: The mens rea of a crime includes elements relating to the mental state of the accused. In our example of theft, the elements of mens rea are “dishonesty” and “intent to deprive permanently.” Elements of mens rea are often more difficult to spot in legislation because words are adjectives that are usually unstandardized and emotional. Examples can be “dishonest,” “intentional,” “fraudulent,” or “conscious.” The three types of mens rea elements accepted are intent, recklessness or negligence. Many criminal laws require a person to “knowingly” engage in illegal activities. The part of the crime that must be committed knowingly depends on the crime. For example, a drug trafficking law could require the person to “knowingly” import an illegal drug into the United States. If the defendant had received a gift to deliver to someone in the United States and he honestly did not know that the gift contained an illegal drug, then mens rea or necessary mental state was not established and no crime had been committed. Finally, some criminal laws do not require mens rea or mental state. These strict liability laws apply to certain acts which, regardless of their intent, must be criminally punished, usually those involving minors.
This is best illustrated by legal rape laws that punish sexual intercourse with a minor, even if the perpetrator honestly believed that the minor was over 18 years of age. These laws often seem harsh, but they are based on the protection of minors. As you can see, mens rea involves many complexities and subtle differences. If you are defending yourself against criminal charges, you need a defense lawyer who fully understands the complexity of your case. Therefore, a crime committed intentionally would result in a heavier sentence than if the offender had acted knowingly, recklessly or negligently. The OAG has greatly influenced the penal codes of a number of states and continues to be influential in promoting the discourse on mens rea. Modern criminal law approaches analysis a little differently. Using a framework in the American Law Institute`s Model Penal Code, murder is a “result” offense because it prohibits any “intentional” or “conscious” behavior that causes the death of another human being and therefore leads to death. “Intentional” in this sense means that the actor had a conscious goal or a goal that the outcome (i.e.
the death of another human being) would be achieved. “Knowledge” means that the actor was aware or virtually certain that death would occur, but had no purpose or desire for it to happen. Many States still cling to older terminology, relying on the terms “intentional” to cover both types of mens rea: “intentional” and “conscious”. [6] If the link between mens rea and outcome is questioned because the offence in question requires a match between mens rea and outcome (as opposed to the offence), the prosecution must prove that the result was attributable to mens rea in order to support a conviction. As a general rule, the prosecution will uphold a conviction if it can prove that the defendant intended the result to occur at the time of his act. For example: in English law, section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides a legal framework within which mens rea is assessed. It states: In some jurisdictions, the terms mens rea and actus reus have been replaced by alternative terminology. [3]: 95 [4]: 84 Most criminal cases involve one of the following types of mens rea: Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation of Latin is “guilty spirit.” The plural of mens rea is mentes reae. A mens rea refers to the state of mind required by law to convict a particular defendant for a particular crime. See, for example, Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994).
The determination of an offender`s mens rea is generally necessary to prove guilt in criminal proceedings. As a general rule, the prosecution must prove beyond a doubt that the accused committed the crime with a guilty state of mind. Justice Holmes exemplified the concept of intent when he said, “Even a dog knows the difference between tripping and kicking. The vast majority of law enforcement in the United States is conducted by individual states in accordance with the laws of that state. Historically, states (with the partial exception of Louisiana civil law) applied common law rules of mens rea, similar to those that existed in England, but over time the American understanding of common law mens rea differed from that of English law and from each other. From the late 1950s to the early 1960s, the common law of men was widely recognized as a slippery, vague and confusing mess. [8] This is one of the many factors that led to the development of the Model Penal Code. The purpose of this presentation is to give an overview of mens rea. First of all, the presentation presents the different categories of mens rea. Then, the presentation will analyze each of these categories, provide key elements for each of them and provide examples of crimes classified under these mental states. With the exception of strict liability, these categories of mens rea are defined in subsection 2.02(2) of the OAG.
The doctrine of “figurative wickedness” applies when there is an unexpected discrepancy between the state of mind of the accused and the appearance of the actus reus. The mens rea shall be deemed to be transferred if this deviation is not relevant to the definition of the offence. So if D fires a gun that wants to kill T, but misses and kills V, the fact that V`s death was unintentional does not exclude D`s responsibility for murder. It is sufficient that D intended to kill a person – the identity of that person is not relevant to the definition of the offence. Compare this to the situation where D`s ball, instead of hitting T, shatters a window of the house next door. Here, the intent to kill a person cannot be “transferred” to make D guilty of criminal harm – a crime with a different mens rea requirement. It is presumed that an offence defined by the law requires mens rea, even if the law is silent on this issue. [4] The Road Traffic Act of 1991 abolished the offences of reckless driving and cause of death by reckless driving and replaced them with new offences of dangerous driving and death by dangerous driving.
The change in nomenclature was a return to the old terminology of previous offences, i.e. the replacement of a mens rea requirement with an element of error requiring dangerousness. Section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (inserted by the 1991 Act) now contains a definition of dangerous driving that is completely objective and speaks of things that are “obvious” to a safe and competent driver. The Model Penal Code has four different levels of mens rea: purpose (such as intent), knowledge, recklessness and negligence.