Mens rea

Scales of justice
Criminal law
Part of the common law series
Element (criminal law)
Actus reus · Mens rea
Causation · Concurrence
Scope of criminal liability
Complicity · Corporate · Vicarious
Inchoate offenses
Attempt · Conspiracy · Solicitation
Offence against the person
Assault · Battery
False imprisonment · Kidnapping
Mayhem · Sexual assault
Homicide crimes
Murder · Felony murder
Manslaughter
Negligent homicide
Vehicular homicide
Crimes against property
Arson · Blackmail · Burglary
Embezzlement · Extortion
False pretenses · Larceny
Receiving stolen property
Robbery · Theft
Crimes against justice
Compounding · Misprision
Obstruction · Perjury
Malfeasance in office
Perverting the course of justice
Defenses to liability
Defense of self
Defence of property
Consent · Diminished responsibility
Duress · Entrapment
Ignorantia juris non excusat
Infancy · Insanity
Intoxication defense
Justification · Mistake (of law)
Necessity · Loss of Control (Provocation)
Other common law areas
Contracts · Evidence · Property
Torts · Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Criminal justice · Law

In criminal law, mens rea – the Latin term for "guilty mind"[1] – is usually one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). The Criminal Law does not usually apply to a person who has acted with the absence of mental fault; this is the general rule.

The exception is strict liability crimes (in the civil law, it is not usually necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability, say for breach of contract or a tort, although if intentionally committed, this may increase the measure of damages payable to compensate the plaintiff as well as the scope of liability).

Quite simply therefore mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the actus reus. In some jurisdictions the terms mens rea and actus reus have been superseded by alternative terminology. In Australia for example the elements of all federal offences are now designated as "fault elements" (mens rea) and "physical element" (actus reus). This terminology was adopted in order to replace the obscurity of the Latin terms with simple and accurate phrasing.[2]

Contents

Element types

Under the traditional common law, the guilt or innocence of a person relied upon whether they had committed the crime, actus reus, and whether they intended to commit the crime, mens rea. However, many modern penal codes have created levels of mens rea called modes of culpability which vary depending on the offense elements of the crime: the conduct, the circumstances, and the result, or what the Model Penal Code calls CAR (conduct, attendant circumstances, result). The definition of a crime is thus constructed using only these elements rather than the colorful language of mens rea in traditional common law:[3]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
—18 U.S.C. §1111 (traditional common law)
A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an

individual

—portion of Texas Penal Code ch. 19 §19.02 (modern offense element)

The traditional common law definitions and the modern definitions approach the crime from different angles.

In the traditional common law approach, the definition includes:

  1. actus reus: unlawful killing of a human being
  2. mens rea: malice aforethought

Modern Law approaches the analysis somewhat differently. Homicide is a "results" crime in that it forbids any "intentional" or "knowing" conduct that results in the death of another human being. "Intentional" in this sense means the actor possessed a "purpose" or "desire" that his or her objective (i.e. death of another human being) be achieved. "Knowing" means that the actor was aware or practically certain that the death would result. Thus, the actus reus and mens rea of homicide in a modern criminal statute can be considered as follows:

  1. actus reus: Any conduct resulting in the death of another individual.
  2. mens rea: The conduct resulting in the death was done intentionally or knowingly.

In the modern offense element approach, the attendant circumstances tend to take over for the traditional mens rea, indicating the level of culpability as well as other circumstances, i.e. the crime of theft of government property would include as an attendant circumstance that the property belong to the government.[3]

Modes of culpability

The levels of mens rea and the distinction between them vary between jurisdictions. Although common law originated from England, the common law of each jurisdiction with regard to culpability varies as precedents and statutes vary.

England

United States

Title 18 of the United States Code does not have a culpability scheme but relies on more traditional definitions of crimes taken from common law. For example, malice aforethought is used as a requirement for committing capital murder.[10]

American Law Institute's Model Penal Code

Prior to the 1960s, mens rea in the United States was a very slippery, vague and confused concept. Since then, the formulation of mens rea set forth in the Model Penal Code has been highly influential throughout North America in clarifying the discussion of the different modes of culpability.[11]

Ignorance of the law and mens rea

The general rule under common law is that "ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution."[12] In some cases, Courts have held that if the law is extremely complex, such as a tax code, a defendant may use ignorance as a defense to willfulness if his misunderstanding is in good-faith:

The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws...the Court almost 60 years ago interpreted the statutory term "willfuly" as used in federal criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule."[13]

Crimes like tax evasion are specific intent crimes and require intent to violate the law as an element of the offense.[14] Not all offenses require specific intent, and a misreading, even in good-faith, may not excuse the criminal conduct.[15] A good-faith belief that a law is unjust or unconstitutional is no excuse,[16] but "reasonable compliance upon an official statement of law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous" does not constitute a criminal act.[17]

Subjective and objective tests

The test for the existence of mens rea may be:

(a) subjective, where the court must be satisfied that the accused actually had the requisite mental element present in his or her mind at the relevant time (for purposely, knowingly, recklessly etc) (see concurrence);
(b) objective, where the requisite mens rea element is imputed to the accused, on the basis that a reasonable person would have had the mental element in the same circumstances (for negligence); or
(c) hybrid, where the test is both subjective and objective.

The court will have little difficulty in establishing mens rea if there is actual evidence – for instance, if the accused made an admissible admission. This would satisfy a subjective test. But a significant proportion of those accused of crimes make no such admissions. Hence, some degree of objectivity must be brought to bear as the basis upon which to impute the necessary component(s). It is always reasonable to assume that people of ordinary intelligence are aware of their physical surroundings and of the ordinary laws of cause and effect (see causation). Thus, when a person plans what to do and what not to do, he will understand the range of likely outcomes from given behaviour on a sliding scale from "inevitable" to "probable" to "possible" to "improbable". The more an outcome shades towards the "inevitable" end of the scale, the more likely it is that the accused both foresaw and desired it, and, therefore, the safer it is to impute intention. If there is clear subjective evidence that the accused did not have foresight, but a reasonable person would have, the hybrid test may find criminal negligence. In terms of the burden of proof, the requirement is that a jury must have a high degree of certainty before convicting, defined as "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the United States and "sure" in the United Kingdom.[18][19][20] It is this reasoning that justifies the defences of infancy, and of lack of mental capacity under the M'Naghten Rules, an alternate common law rule (e.g., Durham test), and one of various statutes defining mental illness as an excuse. Moreover, if there is an irrebuttable presumption of doli incapax - that is, that the accused did not have sufficient understanding of the nature and quality of his actions – then the requisite mens rea is absent no matter what degree of probability might otherwise have been present.[21] For these purposes, therefore, where the relevant statutes are silent and it is for the common law to form the basis of potential liability, the reasonable person must be endowed with the same intellectual and physical qualities as the accused, and the test must be whether an accused with these specific attributes would have had the requisite foresight and desire.

In English law, s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides a statutory framework within which mens rea is assessed. It states:[22]

A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,
(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

Under s8(b) therefore, the jury is allowed a wide latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intention or foresight (for the purposes of recklessness) on the basis of all the evidence.

Relevance of motive

One of the mental components often raised in issue is that of motive. If the accused admits to having a motive consistent with the elements of foresight and desire, this will add to the level of probability that the actual outcome was intended (it makes the prosecution case more credible). But if there is clear evidence that the accused had a different motive, this may decrease the probability that he or she desired the actual outcome. In such a situation, the motive may become subjective evidence that the accused did not intend, but was reckless or willfully blind.

Motive cannot be a defence. If, for example, a person breaks into a laboratory used for the testing of pharmaceuticals on animals, the question of guilt is determined by the presence of an actus reus, i.e. entry without consent and damage to property, and a mens rea, i.e. intention to enter and cause the damage. That the person might have had a clearly articulated political motive to protest such testing does not affect liability. If motive has any relevance, this may be addressed in the sentencing part of the trial, when the court considers what punishment, if any, is appropriate.

Intention

Recklessness (United States: "willful blindness")

In such cases, there is clear subjective evidence that the accused foresaw but did not desire the particular outcome. When the accused failed to stop the given behavior, he took the risk of causing the given loss or damage. There is always some degree of intention subsumed within recklessness. During the course of the conduct, the accused foresees that he may be putting another at risk of injury: A choice must be made at that point in time. By deciding to proceed, the accused actually intends the other to be exposed to the risk of that injury. The greater the probability of that risk maturing into the foreseen injury, the greater the degree of recklessness and, subsequently, sentence rendered. For example, at common law, an unlawful homicide committed recklessly would ordinarily constitute the crime of voluntary manslaughter. One committed with "extreme" or "gross" recklessness as to human life would constitute murder, sometimes defined as "depraved heart" or "abandoned and malignant heart" murder.[23]

Criminal negligence

Here, the test is both subjective and objective. There is credible subjective evidence that the particular accused neither foresaw nor desired the particular outcome, thus potentially excluding both intention and recklessness. But a reasonable person with the same abilities and skills as the accused would have foreseen and taken precautions to prevent the loss and damage being sustained. Only a small percentage of offences are defined with this mens rea requirement. Most legislatures prefer to base liability on either intention or recklessness and, faced with the need to establish recklessness as the default mens rea for guilt, those practising in most legal systems rely heavily on objective tests to establish the minimum requirement of foresight for recklessness.

See also

References

Notes

  1. ↑ Elizabeth A. Martin, ed (2003). Oxford Dictionary of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198607563 
  2. ↑ Brent Fisse, "Howard's Criminal Law" (1990) 12-13.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Dubber p. 46
  4. ↑ R v Nedrick [1986]
  5. ↑ R v Woollin [1998]
  6. ↑ R v Matthews & Alleyne [2004]
  7. ↑ R v Cunningham [1957]
  8. ↑ R v G & R [2003]
  9. ↑ R v Caldwell [1982]
  10. ↑ Dubber p. 55
  11. ↑ Dubber pp. 60-80
  12. ↑ Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991)
  13. ↑ Cheek, at 199-200
  14. ↑ Cheek, at 194
  15. ↑ People v. Marrero, 507 N.E.2d 1068 (N.Y. 1987)
  16. ↑ Cheek, at 205-7
  17. ↑ State v. Godwin, 31 S.E. 221 (N.C. 1898)
  18. ↑ In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
  19. ↑ R v Majid [2009] EWCA Crim 2563
  20. ↑ Crown Bench Book: Directing the Jury. Judicial Studies Board. 2010. 
  21. ↑ In re Devon T., 584 A.2d 1287 (Md. Court App. 1991)
  22. ↑ Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c.80)
  23. ↑ California Penal Code §§ 188-199

Sources

External links