[ad_1]
Scienter refers to a defendant’s knowledge of wrongdoing in a trial. It can be subjective or objective, and mental illness or youth may affect liability. Strict liability statutes impose liability regardless of mental state, such as in animal or traffic offenses.
Derived from the Latin word scire, meaning “to know,” scienter refers to the defendant’s knowledge or awareness of a wrongdoing in a civil or criminal trial. In order to prevail in a common law proceeding, the plaintiff or prosecutor must assert in his pleadings, and prove by evidence, that the guilty party acted in full knowledge of the facts. Mens rea, a legal phrase meaning “guilty mind,” is often used interchangeably with scienter, usually in criminal trials. Most laws that impose fines or severe penalties include provisions that require a person must act intentionally, intentionally, or knowingly to be held legally liable. Reckless conduct, defined as behavior that reasonable people know is illegal or dangerous, constitutes a scientist in the eyes of most courts.
The criteria for establishing Scienter can be subjective, objective, or a combination of both. Examples of subjective evidence include an admission or apology by the defendant and past conversations or emails showing knowledge of wrongdoing. Objective evidence may include signs of premeditation and the defendant’s past experiences with similar events. Juries know that people of average intelligence understand the laws of cause and effect and can predict the likely outcomes of any given action. Scienter is objectively imputed to the defendant when a rational person would have been able to predict the likely outcome or would have known the action was wrong.
In cases of limited mental capacity due to youth or mental illness, a defendant may lack an adequate understanding of the ramifications of his or her actions. In these circumstances, juries must consider what a reasonable person of the same intellectual capacity as the defendant would understand. For this reason, the courts, applying the doli incapax rule, assume that children under the age of ten cannot be held responsible for their actions under the law. When certain tests stipulated by the M’Naghten Rules are met, mental illness also absolves a defendant of responsibility. Scienter cannot be established in these cases.
Plaintiffs do not always have to prove that the defendant acted with willful intent or reckless negligence. Strict liability statutes, which govern certain cases, impose civil or criminal liability regardless of the mental state of the defendant. In a strict liability case, a plaintiff need only prove that injury occurred and that the defendant was liable. Most actions involving animals and vehicular traffic offenses fall into this category. The law assumes strict liability in inherently dangerous circumstances, thereby discouraging negligent behavior and forcing potential defendants to take every possible precaution.
[ad_2]