Compare and Contrast Accomplice Actus Reus & Accomplice Mens Rea.

Accomplice: Mens Rea and Actus Reus
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Accomplice: Mens Rea and Actus Reus
Both Mens Rea and Actus Reus are the components that make up the criminal liability accomplice. They are both derived from Latin law terms Actus Reus and Mens Rea to mean guilty act and guilty mind respectively. An individual is said to have committed a crime of the two elements if criminal liability is present (Herrring, 2010). The two expressions are derived from the popular Latin phrase that states that an accomplice is liable to the law for any crime if and only if the act was committed with an intention to do it. Therefore, it is evident that the phrase carries two core principles, act and the intention to do the act. The intention of committing a crime is Mens Rea and is termed as the ability to have a mind that is culpable for doing the crime. The layman definition of Mens Rea is possessing a guilty mind. On the other hand, regardless of the intention to commit an act or not and if a person performs an act is termed as Actus Reus.
The liability of the person depends on the guiltiness of the act. Thus, Actus Reus is used to denote the criminal act performed intentionally or unintentionally. The two are the necessary elements necessary to give meaning to the standard law term of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is necessary to proof Mens Rea and Actus Reus to have happened before convicting a person. In most circumstances, the law has functioned in the way of keeping dangerous people from the public, but the liability of the person only occurs when it is fully proven that the dangerous person has practiced their will in acting unlawfully (Simon K.W., 2002).
In spite of the fact that the exact interpretation of Actus Reus is liable to act, the idea indeed traverses more acts. The concept of Actus Reus can be categorized into the terms, namely circumstances, consequences and conduct. Conduct is characterized as individual behavior. For example, the offense of prevarication requires the conveyance of false confirmation under the watchful eye of a court. Therefore, there is a difference regardless of whether one’s falsehood is trusted, and thus, do not amount to consequences wrongdoing. Circumstances are characterized as a state of the matter. In this way, for instance, it is an offense to drive a vehicle while intoxicated. It doesn't make a difference regardless of whether the act of driving is risky or not. On the other hand, consequences are characterized as the outcome or result of an action. A great illustration of a consequences wrongdoing is murder, and the Actus Reus necessitates t...