The elements that constitue mens rea, particularly:
Don’t waste time Get a verified expert to help you with Essay
- The accused knew what they have been doing
- They knew what they have been doing was incorrect (legally)
- They have been in sound mind to decide on whether or not to do it
- They chose to do it anyway. If any of these 4 are not current, then mens rea isn’t complete, and the particular person could be found not guilty (including pleading insanity).
Furthermore, there’s a class of offences generally known as “strict liability offences”, for which there needn’t be any evidence of mens rea i.
e. you could be found guilty of commiting a felony offense even without knowing it. This includes offences corresponding to canine fouling, breaking the highway code etc. Essentially, it says that ignorance of the legislation isn’t any defence, you’re guilty through the actus reus alone.
On the opposite hand, often the other is true, mens rea in itself can result in conviction i.e. if it was proved that an individual was planning/intending to commit a crime, they are often convicted with out truly having “done” something.
Usually, this takes the type of fulfilling an offence in itself e.g conspircay to commit murder. This has a substantial quantity of importance right now; if somebody purchases a load of chemicals and mixes them to create explosives of their home, the law doesn’t have to wait for tem to blow one thing up earlier than they can be convicted of terrorism. If you’ve seen the movie “Minority Report”, you’ll know the risks of taking this to the extreme.
Broadly talking, in legal legislation, it must be proved past cheap doubt that an individual pposessed the related mens rea and committed the actus reus on order to be convicted of against the law. However, to cope with the variety of offences, to encourage consciousness of the legislation and to make sure that the regulation has an ethical component in its operation, then the two doctrine can stand on their own to lead to a conviction.