Difference between actus reus andmens rea - 275 Words

Difference between actus reus andmens rea (Essay Sample) Content: Law Assignment Name Institution Law Assignment Actus reus implies the physical element of a crime that can be in the form of a state of affairs or an omission. On the other hand, mens rea is described as the mental element of a crime. There exists two contrasts that assist in clarifying the nature of actus reus, the first being it difference with mens rea. The latter term is literally translated from Latin meaning guilty mind. The technical legal use of the term implies the prerequisite of criminal liability pertaining to the state of mind of the accused when he or she committed the actus reus of some offense. Therefore, one of the mens rea sufficient for murder is general intent. For instance, an accused person must both actually commit a crime, and intend that he or she is committing a crime in order to be regarded as being guilty of such an offense (Moore, 1993). Actus reus and mens rea are significant in criminal law since to constitute criminal demeanor, they both must occur simultaneously. In criminal hearings, the two terms are essential since an act does not make an accused guilty of a crime unless his or her mind is also guilty. This implies that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that an individual carried out the actus reus and that he or she had the mens rea. If either of the two elements of a crime cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt, then the accused must be acquitted. Thus, the two terms must be considered for any criminal conviction to exist in the criminal law system. Concurrence in law requires that a guilty state of mind coincide with a guilty act. This means that both elements must occur simultaneously for an accused to be found guilty of a crime. This principle is crucial in a criminal tria...