Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    when the guy is a diabetic and forgot to take his insulin how do we explain the mens rea since he had no recollection of what happend.
    Just explain what the mens rea is, what intention, direct and indirect is, then recklessness. Then say "could possibly" and talk about how it's up the jury to infer intention.

    Then just move onto the defence of insanity.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'd have thought that you would disregard his diabetes until you get to the defence? Therefore answer the offence as you would do even if he didn't have the diabetes, then say "however due to him being a diabetic and forgetting to take his insulin, he may be able to plead the defence of insanity which, on the balance of probabilities, requires proof that blahblah....."

    you can tell I'm going to mess this exam up :mmm:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    What cases do you have for consent? consent is possibly the most interesting, once you get stuck into it I reckon it's not that bad .
    i dont know it at all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    I'd have thought that you would disregard his diabetes until you get to the defence? Therefore answer the offence as you would do even if he didn't have the diabetes, then say "however due to him being a diabetic and forgetting to take his insulin, he may be able to plead the defence of insanity which, on the balance of probabilities, requires proof that blahblah....."

    you can tell I'm going to mess this exam up :mmm:
    so how do i discuss the mens rea if i cant talk about insanity e.g. recklessness coz he didnt take his insulin.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    like the person said above, disregard the diabetes until you get to talking about defences, just state the mens rea for the offence hes comitted.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xyllix)
    so how do i discuss the mens rea if i cant talk about insanity e.g. recklessness coz he didnt take his insulin.
    Aah I get what you mean... you could argue that he may have been aware of at least something therefore could be reckless. If you don't want to do that then just say that 'although this is a question for the jury it seems like D did not intend the crime as he was not in a state of mind where he could form the mens rea' or something? Hmmm good question ahaha I'm not even sure but I would say something like that. There's no point going into an insanity discussion until you actually start talking about the defence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Lol i find insanity a mess too, so were do we talk about mens rea???
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    You would talk about mens rea as part of the offence :s
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Damn me i forgot that insanity is a defence....sorry.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Damn me i forgot that insanity is a defence....sorry.
    lol you forgot insanity was a defence
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Lol :ninja: what else would it possibly be :p:?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You don't have to say "he has the mens rea because of this". You're supposed to write your answers like 'he could be liable if this was found' because it's always up to the jury. So you basically explain the law and then say "it would be up to the jury to infer intention". You don't know all the facts, so you can't state his intention.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Xyll u was talking bout mens rea for insanity so i got confussed. Yeah u explain the insanity rules, after each rule, u apply the law. I dont see were mens rea comes in here..:s...im i missing a point?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Xyll u was talking bout mens rea for insanity so i got confussed. Yeah u explain the insanity rules, after each rule, u apply the law. I dont see were mens rea comes in here..:s...im i missing a point?
    Your bot getting the point, as byrone just explained above was wat I was looking for. Think about it this way, if alvin is a diabetic and didn't take his insulin then it's insanity, but since he had no recollection of what happened how can you write the mens rea of assault or gbh or even transferred malice since he didn't have any intention coz he didn't remember what happend that night because he had forgot to take his insulin.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah u just say its for jury to consider...:s
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    :ninja:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    going to die in this exam. seriously
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The only thing im scared bout is the reform!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What did everyone get in AS? i Got a B in Criminal and C in law Making.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I feel confident about questions A and B. (Unless murder doesn't come up, then I'm screwed.) But C! :eek3: I'm praying it will be Non-fatal or the defences, not murder on this one.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.