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 fundamental principle that a crime consists of a mental element and a physical element.A persons awareness of the point 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 growth in the 1600s in England when judges started to say that an act alone could not create criminality unless it was ancillary with a guilty secern of fountainhead. The degree for a particular common law crime vary for Mens Rea. Murder indispensable a malicious state of mind, whereas larceny required a felonious state of mind.Mens Rea is generally employ along with the words general intent, however this creates confusion since general intent is used to describe criminal liability when a suspect does not call up to bring about a particular result. On the other hand specific intent describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required. (Answers, 2008)To secure a conviction, the prosecution side must prove that the defendant connected the crime while in a certain state of mind. The definition is specified of every(prenominal) crime before a person can be convicted as a prerequisite for Mens Rea. in that location are three states of mind which constitute the necessary Mens Rea for a criminal offence. These are designing, recklessness and neglect and are described below. (Law Teacher, 2006)Direct intent is the normal situation where the consequences of a persons actions are desired. Oblique intent comes in the situation where the consequence is kn profess 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 judge for some charges, then that person should have the full knowledg e that his/her actions would definitely result in a specific consequence. A probability that something can occur or might occur is not passable to subject a person on criminality. The Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 explains how designing or foresight must be proved by the following paragraph A mash or jury in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be trap in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by land single 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 conclusion drawing 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 solely ER 1025It is important to note that foresight of conse quences is not the same as intention but only evidence of intentionR v Scalley 1995 Crim LR 504.The most recent case in this area is the last 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 inner(a) the defendants mind when the action was taken. Therefore 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, at that place 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 given loss or damage was taken. There is always some