Actus reus and mens rea are the two elements of any crime. Actus reus refers to the physical action of a crime, while mens rea refers to the intent and understanding of the criminal. The interaction between the two determines a criminal’s guilt, but it is often difficult to deduce mens rea. In some cases, mens rea is not taken into account, and it is not permissible to argue that a criminal charge should be dismissed or reduced because the defendant did not know the law.
The relationship between actus reus and mens rea goes to the heart of understanding and judging any crime. These two separate issues are often referred to as the two elements of any crime, although the amount of influence they have on a legal process can vary depending on the circumstances. Actus reus refers to the physical action of a crime, while mens rea refers to the intent and understanding of the criminal at the time of the crime.
How actus reus and mens rea interact helps determine a criminal’s guilt. While the actus reus determines whether an act is unlawful, the mens rea seeks to define the level of moral responsibility. In some legal systems, for example, a homicide charge applies only to a homicide where the perpetrator knowingly and willfully committed the homicide. While the perpetrator killing the victim is the actus reus of the crime, it is the mens rea that can determine whether the murder is defined as manslaughter, manslaughter, or accidental death.
Unfortunately, the use of actus reus and mens rea to determine a criminal penalty is rarely cut and dry. As philosophers have long noted, it is impossible to tell or even fully understand what is going on in another person’s mind. Juries and judges are often reduced to deducing mens rea through the circumstances of the crime as well as the arguments and testimony of each party. This can make assigning motives and intent a murky business, regardless of the actus reus.
In determining the mens rea for a crime, judges and juries often have the opportunity to examine motive based on objective and subjective criteria. The objective standard asks whether a reasonable person would have known that the act was illegal and would have made the same choices under the given circumstances. Subjective standards are based on the court’s understanding of the actus rea; essentially asking whether the evidence permits inference of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Examining the matter against these concepts can help a judge or jury make a fair inference about the defendant’s mens rea. In these cases the actus reus and the mens rea are indelibly connected to each other.
In many crimes, the actus reus and the mens rea do not carry the same weight. Some criminal acts, known as strict liability crimes, do not take mens rea into account at all. Furthermore, it is usually not permissible to argue that a criminal charge should be dismissed or reduced because the defendant did not know the law; although in cases where the laws are significantly complex and considered beyond a reasonable person’s understanding, such as tax laws, this sort of mens rea argument can be afforded some weight.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
