Actus reus

In order to determine whether an individual is criminally responsible, the actus reus which is the voluntary culpable act and the mens rea which is the mental state of mind, the guilty mind should both be present beyond a reasonable doubt during the criminal act (Verdun Jones, 2014, p. 23). According to section 229 (a) of the Criminal Code, in order to be convicted of culpable homicide, the intention to inflict bodily harm that is likely to result in death is required (Verdun Jones, 2014, p.…

On July 12th, 2014, Conrad Roy III committed suicide by suffocating himself with carbon monoxide in his truck. This is after having been encouraged to do so by his girlfriend, Michelle Carter. At the time of his death, Ms. Carter was on the phone with him and, after supporting him to take his own life, was witness to his dying and failed to alert authorities or the boy’s parents during and after Roy’s death. For her actions, and lack thereof, Michelle Carter was on trial with the possibility of…

Ratio Decidendi: Judge Rebecca Steinman and the jury find Mason guilty of Criminal Facilitation because he commits both the actus reus as well as the mens rea in aiding the murder of Doctor Vinton. Criminal Facilitation Rick Mason is charged and found guilty of criminal facilitation by the judge in court. As stated in law, “A person is guilty of criminal facilitation in the first degree when, believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends to engage in criminal conduct,…

Introduction In order to establish criminal liability, the actus reus must generally be proved. The actus reus of an offence are comprised with the prohibited conduct, the relevant circumstances, the consequence and causation. Causation is one of the four elements of actus reus. Causation in the criminal context is concerned with the legal attribution of criminal responsibility for consequences. Homicide is a result crime in the sense that the defendant must be proved to have caused the…

and legislative bodies amend the penalties in accordance to heinousness of the crime predators comment. Szypszak’s states the element of any crime requires the state of mind of the individual (Szypszak, 2011). The law requires both mens rea and actus rea in order to establish culpability (Gorr, & Kleinig, 1991). In other words, the act must be carry out along with the mind of guilt. So reads…

Sunita is liable for her actions against Barbara under the Offences against the Person Act 1861. By throwing the paperweight and stating “I am going to kill you!” Barbara is apprehending physical violence with a threat to kill , she is committing common assault, by intentionally leading “someone to expect the (non-consensual) application to his body of immediate unlawful force.’ (Venna). Under section 18 of the Act, “wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent”, Sunita is fulfilling the…

This essay will look at landmark cases in the development of strict and absolute liability, and its relationship with regulatory offences for the purposes of demonstrating how the balances of mens rea and actus reus, and charter rights with individual statues. In doing so, the essay will show how these balances and their changes represent shifts in understandings and definings of morality and criminality. The essay will first look at the famous historical case of Sault Ste. Marie, Levis v.…

A person cannot be punished for thinking criminal thoughts. All crimes require actus reus and the mens rea which is the Latin term for the “guilty act” and “guilty mind”. But to prove whether a crime has been committed, it is usually necessary to show both the actus reus and the mens rea. However, some crimes do not require proof of mens rea; these are known as strict liability crimes. Within the actus reus, there must be both a voluntary act and a consequent result. There are, however, some…

Offences of strict liability is an act of crime which does not require intention, recklessness or even negligence to one or more elements in the actus reus. In Malaysia, strict liability can be defined as a legal responsibility for damages or injury even if the person is found strictly liable without his fault or negligence. Under Common Law, there are an aversion to impose strict liability most likely because of the absence of mens rea in these offences. A person is not considered guilty of a…

For one to even start deluding themselves into believing ‘murder is murder,’ one would have to define murder in a way that passes common approval, in this case, the killing of ‘a’ human being. The ‘a’ in that definition implies any number of people killed, which exposes the flaws in the argument of ‘murder is murder.’ By not specifying the number of people killed, an accident such as a flowerpot tumbling from an apartment windowsill that kills an unfortunate passerby, which would normally be…