mens rea (1 Viewer)

[lcx]

its got intent, recklessness and negligence right so i'm nto quite sure where the recklessness and neglience part comes in.

if sum1 is found to be reckless are they guilty of the offence?
and if they are negligent are they guilty as well?
i wasn't sure but the degree of their penalites are less than if they intentionally commited the crime it think?
becasue for mens rea the lawyers are trying to prove firstly,
1-intention
2-recklessness
3-negligance
in terms of how serious their penalties would end up being??

 

[macca's_ baby]

mens rea (guilty mind), planning a murder, drug crimes etc

they had to plan the crime. eg. minor traffic offences you do not have mens rea but actus reus (the guilty act) no prior planning to run red light.

 

[lcx]

mens rea (guilty mind), planning a murder, drug crimes etc

they had to plan the crime. eg. minor traffic offences you do not have mens rea but actus reus (the guilty act) no prior planning to run red light.

i know what mens rea is, as in the main part of guilty mind, so tis the mental part of an offence. but where does the 2 other parts come in?? intent is obvious, but i dotn get the recklessness and neglience part. can any1 explaint hat plz?

 

[Concubine]

Planning, IE premeditation, usually does not come into Mens Rea.
Recklessness is knowing the consequences of your action, but not caring.
Negligence is failing to foresee the consequences of your actions, where a 'reasonable man' would in that situation.
Traffic offences come under strict liability, which is why Mens Rea does not apply.

Hope that helped a little!

 

[melsc]

These are alternative forms of mens rea right, you don't need to prove them all.
Depending on the crime you can prove any to get a guilty conviction, some crimes do not allow for negligence but most allow for recklessness of intention.
The penalty may drop as you go further down the list i.e. intention is more serious than recklessness which is more serious than negligence.
Intention: definition is obvious
Recklessness - knowing the consquences but not caring/doing it anyway
Negligence - failing to forsee the consequences, someone ought to have known the consquences but didn't. Its OBJECTIVE what the REASONABLE person would have forseen. The other two are subjective i.e. the accused state of mind at the time.
Hope that helps.

 

[misbahf]

i know what mens rea is, as in the main part of guilty mind, so tis the mental part of an offence. but where does the 2 other parts come in?? intent is obvious, but i dotn get the recklessness and neglience part. can any1 explaint hat plz?

Mens rea - in short it means guilty mind....by that it means when the person was commiting the offence they were being negligent as they could see what going to ahppen if they went forth with the act. The also did the act with reckless indifference: they knew what they were doing would cause harm.

Example: ( the actual case name is in my legal book)

A husband a wife were engaged is a sex game and the husband ended up strangling his wife during the game. In court he was convicted of murder as what he did was negligent and he took part in the game with reckless indifference... knowing that it would cause harm to the other perosn.

 

[obimoshman1234]

OK this is how it goes:
intention= malice afore thought straight out murder
reckless indifference= still murder due to knowing of actions result in death of other/s
negligence = this will drop charges down to manslaugther or to be specific involuntary manslaughter.

This is why lawyers use it as hierachy of what to prove first because althought reckless indifference still charged as murder it is a lower form with lower punishment however if they get to negligence the charges and max sentence drops.