Actus Reus and Men’s Rea, Essay Example

In basic terms, actus reus and mens rea are the cornerstones of the entire criminal justice system. Both terms, respectively referring to the elements of criminal action and criminal state of mind, are inherently connected to the offender. There must be an established link between intent and action for a crime to be identified as such (Siegel, 2008,  p. 86), and consequently the bulk of a criminal case rests upon proving the presence of both factors.

The element of action is typically the easier to prove in a trial, as action is determined by factual evidence and witness testimony. However, actus reus is not without its complications.  That is to say, an action is not defined strictly by its consequences; it must be seen as voluntary from the offender for the act to be the relevant element, and voluntariness can be disputed. A defendant may claim, for example, to have acted under coercion (Molan, 2007,  p. 57). If this claim is valid, the action itself loses substance as evidence. Other motivations may apply as well, the most prevalent being when actus reus is prompted by a mental state in which no voluntary will can be determined, as in insanity.

This goes to the far greater issues involved in proving mens rea. In a very real sense, mens rea is an ancient concept dependent on certain suppositions regarding criminality; it relies on the offender existing within an ethical framework and consciously choosing to do wrong.  As expressed in 1993’s case of U.S. v. Cordoba-Hincapie, “Western civilized nations have long looked to the wrong-doer’s mind to determine both the propriety and the grading of punishment” (Samaha, 2010,   p. 106). Criminality, unfortunately, is rarely so simple. An act may be “wrong”, yet motivated by ethical considerations in keeping with a society’s codes. A defendant may commit an action that has damaging repercussions, but the impetus, or mens rea, may have been to achieve a correct goal, or at least not a criminal one.  Most importantly, establishing culpability in regard to mens rea translates to establishing what, in effect, cannot be a proven thing, as a mental state may always be obfuscated, deliberately misrepresented, misunderstood, or misinterpreted.

References

Molan, M.  (2007.)  Cases and Materials on Criminal Law.  New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, Publishers.

Samaha, J.  (2010.)  Criminal Law.  Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Siegel, L. J. (2008.)  Essentials of Criminal Justice.  Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.