Guilt and Intent in Criminal Law. Actus reus, mens rea and concurrence

Guilt and Intent in Criminal Law
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Guilt and Intent in Criminal Law
Actus reus, mens rea and concurrence
Actus reus generally refers to an evident act or omission that a person commits in furtherance of criminal activity. Therefore, from a legal perspective, any physical elements linked to the crime, such as voluntary body movements fall under the provisions of actus reus. Under the voluntary acts, the individual must be willing and had knowledge and ability to act differently to be found guilty of the offence. On the other hand, omission satisfies the actus reus clause if the defendant has a status relationship with the victim or in instances where there exist statutes in the law requiring intervention by others in aid of victims. For example, under the case People of the State of New York v. Decina 138 N.E.2d 799, the defendant was found guilty of criminal negligence after she caused an accident after suffering an epileptic seizure (Moore & Worall, 2013, p.93). In this case, it was proven that Decina knew of the underlying health problems that she experienced and the possible consequences but still made the decision to drive thus proving her negligence.
Mens rea, can be defined as the criminal intent of an individual, thus puts into consideration the defendant’s ability to make decisions when committing the illegal activity. From this point of view, aspects put into account under this provision include the intent, knowledge of the crime, recklessness on the defendant’s part and negligence by the defendant. The intent of the crime requires the individual to be fully aware of the implications or unaware of the final consequences while knowledge refers to the awareness of the defendant on the action being a crime or failure to enquire on whether the acts are criminal. Additionally, recklessness refers to the knowledge of a criminal activity that is ignored by the defendant, while negligence is referred to as the lack of foresight of any possible risks. Therefore, the above factors must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court since it is essential to the crime to show that indeed the defendant is fully responsible. However, it is difficult to prove what the defendant was thinking at the time of committing the offence hence decisions are made through inferences from the presented evidence. For instance, considering the case Regina v. Cunningham, 41 Crim. App. 155, Cunningham was charged with attempted murder, but an appellate court later reversed the murder charge (Moore & Worall, 2013, p.106). From his actions, Cunningham did not intend to commit murder but rather committed burglary and did not plan on killing Regina.
Concurrence must occur for an individual to be said to have conducted criminal behaviour. Therefore, actus reus and mens rea must occur for a defendant to be proved to be criminally liable. A defendant must thus be found guilty of committing both the act and having the intention to commit the crime to justify culpability. Under the two different forms of concurrence, the intent and the actions by the defendant must coincide or be in t...