Criminal law- Actus Rea and Mens Rea Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Criminal law- Actus Rea and Mens Rea - Essay ExampleIn criminal law it is the basic principle that a disgust consists of a mental element and a sensual element.A soulfulnesss awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal is the mental element, and Actus Reas is the physical element and Actus Reas (the act itself) is the physical element.The concept of Mens Rea started its development in the 1600s in England when judges started to say that an act alone could not create criminality unless it was adjunct with a guilty verbalise of mind. The degree for a lapserence common law crime varied for Mens Rea. Murder required a malicious state of mind, whereas larceny required a felonious state of mind.Mens Rea is generally used along with the words general heading, however this creates confusion since general intent is used to describe criminal financial obligation when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. On the other hand specific intent describe s a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required. (Answers, 2008)To secure a conviction, the prosecution side mustiness prove that the defendant committed the crime spell in a certain state of mind. The definition is specified of every crime before a person can be convicted as a prerequisite for Mens Rea. There are three states of mind which constitute the necessary Mens Rea for a criminal offence. These are object, recklessness and negligence and are described below. (Law Teacher, 2006)Direct intent is the normal situation where the consequences of a persons exploits are desired. Oblique intent comes in the situation where the consequence is known by the defendant as virtually certain, although it is not desired for its own sake, and the defendant goes ahead with his actions anyway. (Law Teacher, 2006)Intention Based On Foresight of ConsequencesFor a person to get acquitted for some charges, then that person should have the full knowledge that his/her ac tions would definitely result in a specific consequence. A probability that something can occur or might occur is not enough to subject a person on criminality. The Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 explains how intention or foresight must be proved by the following paragraph A court or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reason only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence draft such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances. (Law Teacher, 2006)The cases where they were applied are listed below.The relationship between foresight and intention was considered by the House of Lords inHyam v DPP 1975 AC 55R v Moloney 1985 1 All ER 1025It is important to note that foresight of consequences is not the same as inten tion but only evidence of intentionR v Scalley 1995 Crim LR 504.The most recent case in this area is the decision of the House of Lords inR v Woollin 1998 4 All ER 103.The law says - For the prosecutors to come up with evidence that the defendant had directly intended to perform a certain action to get a specific result would be extremely difficult (R v Moloney, 1985). This is because one cannot know what is or what was inside the defendants mind when the action was taken. accordingly in criminal law, the proof of only the foresight intent is required as opposed to direct intent. (Law Teacher, 2006)RecklessnessRecklessness is taking an unjustified risk. In most cases, there is clear subjective evidence that the accused predicted but did not desire the particular outcome. When the accused committed the act, the risk of causing the attached loss or damage was taken. There is always some