Assignment 1: Criminal Conduct and Criminal Law Assignment

Criminal Conduct and Criminal Law
Student`s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required men's rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Provide a rationale to support your position.
Crime has affected America for a long time, and it will continue to do so. The criminal laws control the behaviors of citizens telling them what they can and cannot do and in some of the instances what the individuals should do under certain circumstances. Individuals don’t follow the laws protecting them resulting in higher crime rates. Men`s rea is the guilty mind; a criminal intent; Guilty knowledge and willfulness (Ward, 2015). Men`s rea in criminal law is a principle that a crime comprises of both mental and physical element. When individuals are aware of the fact that their act is a criminal offense, it is termed as the mental element and the act of actus reus is the physical element. The Mens rea concept started in 1600 in England when the judges stated that an act could be a crime unless it was adjunct with a guilty state of mind.
The extent of a specific common law crime varied for men's rea. An individual committing murder should have a malicious state of mind, whereas larcency required a felonious state of mind. Men`s rea go in hand with the words general intent, however, it confuses because general purpose talks about criminal liability when the defendant doesn’t have intentions of bringing a specific result. Specific purpose describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is needed (Ward, 2015).
For a conviction to be secured, the prosecution side should have evidence that the defendant committed a crime while in a certain state of mind. When the intent is direct the situation is reasonable, and the consequences of the individual`s actions are desired. In a situation whereby the defendant knows the repercussions as virtually certain oblique intent comes in place. If a person doesn’t have the required men's rea they have engaged in the actus reus depending on the situation surrounding the case, then the individual stands high chances of conviction (Ward, 2015). Individuals with appropriate men's rea have the knowledge and the intention of the crime they have committed. For instance, if individual plans to murder his friend because of sleeping with his girlfriend the person has intentions of committing a crime.
If a person has a visitor and tells them to move out and the visitor refuses then the person decides to remove the visitor forcefully. The visitor later fights back and the owner of the house defended themselves by hitting back at the visitor, later the owner is accused of battery then the owner had actus reus and not men's rea. In such a scenario a conviction is not necessarily warranted. A person commits a crime based on the intentions they have, however, if the individual is involved in the act, then the criminal conviction is feasible and warranted. The jury in a court of law determines what an individual will be charged with (Andrews & Bonta, 2014).
Explain the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislativ...