| Revision as of 23:38, 14 November 2004 editCoolcaesar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users31,912 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:09, 18 November 2004 edit undo66.63.133.53 (talk) →''Mens rea'' under the Model Penal CodeNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| This sucks dick | |||
| '''Mens rea''' is a ] concept which focuses on the mental state of the accused and requires proof of a positive state of mind such as intent, recklessness, or willful blindness. In ]s with ], some level of ''mens rea'' is always a required element of the ] with which the defendant is charged, and must be proven by the prosecution. Most ] claims also incorporate some level ''of mens rea'' as a required element, with the exception of ] ]s. | |||
| ''Mens rea'' comes from the ] phrase; ''Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'', translated ''An act does not make a man guilty unless his mind be also guilty''. ''Mens rea'' roughly translates to ''guilty mind''. | |||
| An illustration of ''mens rea'' would be the difference between hurting someone voluntarily and accidentally; in the first case, the ''mens rea'', the intention to hurt, is present but not in the second one. | |||
| Another example: if the intention to kill or to act in a way that can predictably lead to the death is not proved, one can not be found guilty of the crime of ] because the definition of this crime includes this condition (to be convicted, you need both the mens rea and the ], also known as the "psychological" and "material" elements); without the mens rea for murder, the accusation will usually turn into ], a different but similar crime that does not require the same mens rea. | |||
| == ''Mens rea'' under the Model Penal Code == | |||
| Prior to the 1960s, ''mens rea'' was a very slippery, vague and confused concept. Since then, the formulation of ''mens rea'' set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout ] in clarifying the discussion of the different levels of ''mens rea''. | |||
| The four levels of ''mens rea'' set forth in the MPC are: | |||
| (1) Purposely - Express purpose to commit a specific crime against a particular person | |||
| (2) Knowingly - Knowledge that one's actions would certainly result in a crime against someone, but did not specifically intend to commit that crime against the particular victim which one is accused of injuring | |||
| (3) Recklessly - Knew that one's actions had an unjustifiable risk of leading to a certain result, but did not care about that risk ("reckless disregard"), and acted anyway | |||
| (4) ] - Did not intend to cause the result that happened, but failed to exercise a reasonable duty of care to prevent that result (which includes failing to become aware of the risk of that result) | |||
| Some commentators like to add on a fifth uncodified level (technically applicable only in civil lawsuits and not criminal prosecutions): | |||
| (5) ] - Did everything possible to prevent the result that happened, but will be held liable anyway as a matter of public policy, because the government wants to force all such similarly situated persons to always exercise the maximum reasonable duty of care under such circumstances | |||
| == Examples of mens rea in statutes == | |||
| Model Penal Code: A person commits murder if he (1) ''purposely or knowingly'' (2) causes the death of a human being. | |||
| Common Law: (a) It shall be unlawful for a person to cause the death of a human being with ''malice aforethought''. (b) A violation of this section is murder in the second degree. | |||
| .. | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Revision as of 02:09, 18 November 2004
This sucks dick