Mens rea is the intent to commit a crime, which can determine the severity of the sentence in criminal cases. It can apply to the intent to commit the offense, recklessness, or criminal negligence. Testing for mens rea can fall into subjective, objective, or hybrid tests. Strict liability cases do not require proof of intent but can increase the penalty if proven.
Mens rea is a legal term referring to a “guilty mind” or intent to commit a crime. This intent to do harm or break the law may be the distinguishing factor that separates a criminal liability from civil liability cases. Mens rea also helps to determine the degrees of guilt and thus the severity of the sentence in criminal cases.
In many legal systems both a physical element, the actus reus, and a mental element, the mens rea, must be present to constitute a criminal charge. This mental element, however, is not a simple matter of being guilty or innocent. It can apply to the intent to commit the offence; intention to commit a separate crime that resulted in further harm, recklessness; or criminal negligence. Consider, for example, a case where someone died as a result of another person’s actions. The mentality of the defendant, or the existence of the mens rea, will help determine the seriousness of the crime, allowing a court to rule on death by homicide, manslaughter, or excusable and lawful accident.
In a homicide case, the prosecutor would have to prove that the defendant had malicious premeditation, the most serious type of mens rea in a homicide case. This could include intent to kill, intent to cause grievous bodily harm, a desire to commit a crime knowing it could result in murder, or recklessness to human life. Manslaughter, a homicide with a lesser degree of guilt than murder, could be declared voluntary or involuntary depending on the nature of the mental element. During voluntary homicide there was an intention to kill, but some factors, such as provocation, make the killer less guilty.
In a manslaughter case, the defendant unintentionally kills someone while committing a wrongful act. In this situation, the mental element applies to the other tort, but carries over to the murder, making the defendant more guilty than in an excusable accident. An excusable accident is not punishable because there was no mens rea and the death occurred while the perpetrator exercised normal prudence and did not violate any law.
Testing for mens rea in court can fall into one of three categories: subjective test, objective test, or a combination of the two, called a hybrid test. A subjective test occurs when evidence is presented to demonstrate a guilty mindset, such as the defendant’s admission or a diary that outlines the defendant’s desire to knowingly commit a crime. An objective test of a guilty mindset determines whether a reasonable person would have linked the defendant’s actions to harm or a violation of the law. A hybrid test is useful for accumulating sufficient evidence of a guilty mind or for demonstrating negligence, which may be clear when there is no subjective evidence of premeditation, but the objective test shows that a normal person would have foreseen the crime. If a person lacks normal reasoning skills, whether due to age or mental illness, it can often be argued that a guilty mind does not exist.
While proof of a mental element is typically required to prove criminal liability, strict liability cases do not require proof of intent. Strict liability cases apply to certain crimes that can be punished regardless of the mentality of the accused, such as speeding. If proven, however, the existence of the mens rea can increase the penalty for such an offence.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
