Go to first unread
Back
to top
what is the principle of mens rea? Watch
Announcements
please can someone help me out, what is the principle of mens rea, what does it come under, i cant seem to find it?
thank u x
thank u x
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by winterx)
please can someone help me out, what is the principle of mens rea, what does it come under, i cant seem to find it?
thank u x
please can someone help me out, what is the principle of mens rea, what does it come under, i cant seem to find it?
thank u x
1
reply
Report
#3
I'm not 100% sure but isn't Mens rea the idea that the person intended to do the crime mentally. Isn't it used in cases where people claim their mental health made them do the crime?
0
reply
(Original post by JamesJones777)
I'm not 100% sure but isn't Mens rea the idea that the person intended to do the crime mentally. Isn't it used in cases where people claim their mental health made them do the crime?
I'm not 100% sure but isn't Mens rea the idea that the person intended to do the crime mentally. Isn't it used in cases where people claim their mental health made them do the crime?
yesss when it says explain the principle of mens rea, its jsut asking for the definition?
0
reply
(Original post by Lyrical Prodigy)
Men's rea and the Actus rea alike are principles of Criminal law, more specifically, criminal liability. Is that what you mean?
Men's rea and the Actus rea alike are principles of Criminal law, more specifically, criminal liability. Is that what you mean?
yes but its asking the principle of mens rea, is that the definition or what? or is it the types of mens rea, so confused as to what is considered the principle of mens rea!
0
reply
Report
#6
It is a slightly odd question. Is it an essay question that you're meant to answer in depth? If not, then the simple definition that it's the mental element of criminal liability should suffice.
If, however, it's an essay, then I'd guess that you'd be expected to go into detail on the different forms of mens rea, describing what they are (e.g. distinction between direct intent and the Woollin test for oblique intent) and then possibly going into a more normative discussion of whether you think the current state of the law is satisfactory.
If, however, it's an essay, then I'd guess that you'd be expected to go into detail on the different forms of mens rea, describing what they are (e.g. distinction between direct intent and the Woollin test for oblique intent) and then possibly going into a more normative discussion of whether you think the current state of the law is satisfactory.
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by winterx)
yes but its asking the principle of mens rea, is that the definition or what? or is it the types of mens rea, so confused as to what is considered the principle of mens rea!
yes but its asking the principle of mens rea, is that the definition or what? or is it the types of mens rea, so confused as to what is considered the principle of mens rea!
By definition in the simplest terms, mens rea means guilty mind. Essentially, did the defendant intend to do what he/she did?
You could go on to talk about direct or oblique intent etc.
0
reply
(Original post by AnyRandomName)
It is a slightly odd question. Is it an essay question that you're meant to answer in depth? If not, then the simple definition that it's the mental element of criminal liability should suffice.
If, however, it's an essay, then I'd guess that you'd be expected to go into detail on the different forms of mens rea, describing what they are (e.g. distinction between direct intent and the Woollin test for oblique intent) and then possibly going into a more normative discussion of whether you think the current state of the law is satisfactory.
It is a slightly odd question. Is it an essay question that you're meant to answer in depth? If not, then the simple definition that it's the mental element of criminal liability should suffice.
If, however, it's an essay, then I'd guess that you'd be expected to go into detail on the different forms of mens rea, describing what they are (e.g. distinction between direct intent and the Woollin test for oblique intent) and then possibly going into a more normative discussion of whether you think the current state of the law is satisfactory.
Its just part of the essay question. So i would start off with explaining and defining what mens rea is. & the different types and levels. and then go into answer the second part of whether it is right to be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind- which is strict liability?
sorry, and thanks so much for your help, im a first year law student and im all over the place with this essay D:
0
reply
Report
#9
Mens rea in general means 'guilty mind', but that might seem misleading, as it is regarding the fault element or the culpability of the crime. Mens rea divides into 3 classes - intention (either direct or oblique), recklessness and negligence. Mens rea is basically the mental element of the crime.
For example, mens rea for murder is 'an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm'
Direct intention - murder
Oblique intention - manslaughter
Recklessness - criminal damage
Only strict liability offences do not require to have a mens rea element.
For example, mens rea for murder is 'an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm'
Direct intention - murder
Oblique intention - manslaughter
Recklessness - criminal damage
Only strict liability offences do not require to have a mens rea element.
1
reply
(Original post by Lyrical Prodigy)
Well you could go on to explain what elements need to be there in order for it to be considered mens rea in the first place.
By definition in the simplest terms, mens rea means guilty mind. Essentially, did the defendant intend to do what he/she did?
You could go on to talk about direct or oblique intent etc.
Well you could go on to explain what elements need to be there in order for it to be considered mens rea in the first place.
By definition in the simplest terms, mens rea means guilty mind. Essentially, did the defendant intend to do what he/she did?
You could go on to talk about direct or oblique intent etc.
Thanks! its a essay based question not a problem and its asking about whether its right to be convicted w/o a blameworthy mind, so i would talk about strict liability ?
0
reply
(Original post by agaata5)
Mens rea in general means 'guilty mind', but that might seem misleading, as it is regarding the fault element or the culpability of the crime. Mens rea divides into 3 classes - intention (either direct or oblique), recklessness and negligence. Mens rea is basically the mental element of the crime.
For example, mens rea for murder is 'an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm'
Direct intention - murder
Oblique intention - manslaughter
Recklessness - criminal damage
Negligence - offences against the person such as assault or battery
Only strict liability offences do not require to have a mens rea element.
Mens rea in general means 'guilty mind', but that might seem misleading, as it is regarding the fault element or the culpability of the crime. Mens rea divides into 3 classes - intention (either direct or oblique), recklessness and negligence. Mens rea is basically the mental element of the crime.
For example, mens rea for murder is 'an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm'
Direct intention - murder
Oblique intention - manslaughter
Recklessness - criminal damage
Negligence - offences against the person such as assault or battery
Only strict liability offences do not require to have a mens rea element.
Thank you so much this was very clear and helpful!
0
reply
Report
#12
When you are talking about the principle of mens rea, this ALWAYS includes direct intention, indirect intention and reckless.
Mens Rea is when you have the intention to commit a crime.
There are two forms of mens rea:
Direct Intention- when you desire the outcomes, you intend A and A occured, this is seen in the case R V Mohan
Indirect intention- When you intended for one thing but something else occurred. You Intended A but B occurred, therefore you don't desire the outcomes. This is seen in the Case R V woollin
There is also Recklessness which is a lower form of mens rea - This is when you are aware of the risks yet continue to do it nonetheless. This is seen in Cunningham. (Case)
Hope this helps.
Mens Rea is when you have the intention to commit a crime.
There are two forms of mens rea:
Direct Intention- when you desire the outcomes, you intend A and A occured, this is seen in the case R V Mohan
Indirect intention- When you intended for one thing but something else occurred. You Intended A but B occurred, therefore you don't desire the outcomes. This is seen in the Case R V woollin
There is also Recklessness which is a lower form of mens rea - This is when you are aware of the risks yet continue to do it nonetheless. This is seen in Cunningham. (Case)
Hope this helps.
1
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by winterx)
Thank you so much this was very clear and helpful!
Thank you so much this was very clear and helpful!
0
reply
Report
#14
(Original post by winterx)
Thanks! its a essay based question not a problem and its asking about whether its right to be convicted w/o a blameworthy mind, so i would talk about strict liability ?
Thanks! its a essay based question not a problem and its asking about whether its right to be convicted w/o a blameworthy mind, so i would talk about strict liability ?
1
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by winterx)
Its just part of the essay question. So i would start off with explaining and defining what mens rea is. & the different types and levels. and then go into answer the second part of whether it is right to be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind- which is strict liability?
sorry, and thanks so much for your help, im a first year law student and im all over the place with this essay D:
Its just part of the essay question. So i would start off with explaining and defining what mens rea is. & the different types and levels. and then go into answer the second part of whether it is right to be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind- which is strict liability?
sorry, and thanks so much for your help, im a first year law student and im all over the place with this essay D:
Yeah, I'd say describe the different forms of mens rea: e.g. intention (direct/oblique), recklessness (subjective, per Cunningham), as confirmed in G) etc etc.
Then move onto the strict liability stuff. What have you read on strict liability for this essay so far?
1
reply
(Original post by Lyrical Prodigy)
No because that does not require the men's rea. Good luck with your essay! You've received some pretty good responses
No because that does not require the men's rea. Good luck with your essay! You've received some pretty good responses
Ok, thank you very much, i really appreciate it!
1
reply
(Original post by AnyRandomName)
No need to be sorry, I'm just a first year too so not exactly an expert haha!
Yeah, I'd say describe the different forms of mens rea: e.g. intention (direct/oblique), recklessness (subjective, per Cunningham), as confirmed in G) etc etc.
Then move onto the strict liability stuff. What have you read on strict liability for this essay so far?
No need to be sorry, I'm just a first year too so not exactly an expert haha!
Yeah, I'd say describe the different forms of mens rea: e.g. intention (direct/oblique), recklessness (subjective, per Cunningham), as confirmed in G) etc etc.
Then move onto the strict liability stuff. What have you read on strict liability for this essay so far?
0
reply
Report
#18
(Original post by Lyrical Prodigy)
No because that does not require the men's rea. Good luck with your essay! You've received some pretty good responses
No because that does not require the men's rea. Good luck with your essay! You've received some pretty good responses
0
reply
(Original post by AnyRandomName)
I think the essay question is looking for discussion of strict liability. Surely that's the point of the first limb of the question: describe the culpability element and then ask whether it's okay to dispense with this requirement in some circumstances?
I think the essay question is looking for discussion of strict liability. Surely that's the point of the first limb of the question: describe the culpability element and then ask whether it's okay to dispense with this requirement in some circumstances?
This is the first part of the question:
Explain, with examples, the principle of mens rea and consider whether it is right that the defendant could be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind.
So I would:
- Define Mens rea
- Explain the forms of mens rea
- Strict Liailbity explanation
- Right to be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind.
-- Using strict liability case
- Wrong to be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind.
-- Using strict liability cases
- Conclude
Is this the right way go
0
reply
Report
#20
(Original post by winterx)
This is the first part of the question:
Explain, with examples, the principle of mens rea and consider whether it is right that the defendant could be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind.
So I would:
-- Using strict liability case
-- Using strict liability cases
Is this the right way go
This is the first part of the question:
Explain, with examples, the principle of mens rea and consider whether it is right that the defendant could be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind.
So I would:
- Define Mens rea
- Explain the forms of mens rea
- Strict Liailbity explanation
- Right to be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind.
-- Using strict liability case
- Wrong to be convicted without a blameworthy state of mind.
-- Using strict liability cases
- Conclude
Is this the right way go
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
