| The phrase "mens rea:
means state of mind. It speaks to the level of intention with which
one does an act as well as to what one thinks they were doing when acting.
This is the second compoment to criminal liability. There must be
an actus reus (as we discussed) and (except in limited circumstances) there
must be a mens rea. |
|
| This is, I think, the
most difficult section in criminal law. The book opens with Blackstone's
phrase "without a vicious will there is no crime at all." (page 204)
This is a cornerstone of the criminal law. And it was implicit in
the section on Actus Reus. Go back to the Martin case.
The court held that we only hold people responsible for voluntary actions,
which the Newton case said consciousness was a condition of.
Think about why it seems wrong to hold Martin responsible for being drunk
in public. Responsibility is the key. What is it fair to hold
people responsible for? |
|
Typically we say for
their actions. But implicit in this phrase are the two concepts we
are dealing with: 1)physical action and 2) chosen by the actor. The
second concept is concerned with the mens rea. Another way to put Blackstones
phrase is that we only hold people liable for their choice to do wrong;
without a choice to do wrong, there is no wrong. What is culpable
is the decision to do wrong. Hence as the casebook states
at the outset; there are a great variety of defenses that go the mens rea
even when the actus reus is present:
involuntary
mistake of fact
duress
insanity
accident
(and more)
|
| So the broad defintion
of mens rea is the state of mind with which one choose to act. AGAIN,
it includes a defintion of the act. For example, when we had relations
I "intended and was engaging in a consenual act," or "I was engaged in
rape." Both acts, as I phrased them are purposeful, but they
are two different acts. Put differently, state of mind goes to what
an actor thought he was doing. |
|
| The second part
of the mens rea goes to the level of intentionality. There are four
and the lables are a bit different under the older common law and the model
code: |
Purpose
-- one intends and desires the act and consequences of one's act
Knowledge
-- one knows what one is doing though he may not intend result
Reckless
-- One knows there is substantial risk that one is (e.g. killing, raping,
stealing)
Negligent
-- One does not know, but should know one is (stealing, trespassing, killing
etc.)
|
| Now, as we saw in the
previous cases, crimes have elements such as in the Martin case.
The general rule is that there must be a mens rea as to each material
element, a level of intentionality in doing the wrong. However, different
crimes have different levels of intentionality. For example,
one may purposefully kill (this would be murder) or recklessly kill (not
take action intending to kill but aware that it risked the other person's
life). The latter would be in some jurisdictions, second or third
degree murder. |
|
| In order for someone
to be liable for a crime, he must meet the mens rea required and if he
has a "lower" mens rea than required he will not be liable for that crime.
For example, if first degree murder requires "purpose," a reckless act
will not rise to the level of murder. Many challenges in criminal
appeals concern what degree of mens rea was proven. |
|
| The First question
is what is the baseline mens rea? Many statutes do not specify
the mens rea of a crime. Yet, if a principle of criminal law is that
there can be no crime without a vicious will, some level of intention must
exist before we hold a person liable. When it is not specified what
is the level. This brings us to Regina v. Faulkner
Note that an additional issue in this case is whether the mens rea for
stealing the gas meter sufficed to establish a mens rea for endangering
the life of his soon to be mother-in-law. What was the difference
between the trial court and the court of appeals? |
|
| The Measurement for
recklessness In the cases, recklessness is established when the
result is a probable result which the defendant foresaw. The Code's language
(page 212) is slightly different. Reckless conduct is that conduct
where one had knowledge of a substantial risk. How substanial is
substanial? |
