Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law, Research Paper Example

Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Provide a rationale to support your position.

In this case, the culprit has engaged in the criminal action, but did not have mindset of a criminal. The psychological state of a criminal is an important element in a case. If both the mens rea and the actus rea are not present, then the sentencing will be looked at differently if both can be applied.  The mens rea is essentially the forethought, or the intent, to commit the crime, which is essential in criminal cases.

If the intentionality of the crime cannot be linked to the action of the crime then no cause for criminal actions can be proven.  In this way, those cases which resulted in criminal action, but can be proven to have had no criminal or malicious intent, will not be able to obtain a conviction. “It is the will and intention, that regularly is required, as well as the act and event, to make the offense capital” (Chesney 634) This is due to the necessity of linking both the action and the psychological frame of mind.

Explain the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Next, support or criticize the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad.

Legislative, or parliamentary, immunity is essentially distinct from diplomatic immunity in that it applies to politicians at home rather than abroad.  While diplomatic immunity is essentially the insurance that a diplomat or foreign official will not be tried by another counties laws, but rather expelled from the country, legislative immunity is the protection of those in the legislature who created the laws from any damages that the laws might have on society.  This is, in a sense, the liability that a lawmaker has against the public.  Diplomatic immunity, on the other hand, applies to the agreement of countries not to prosecute one another’s officials.

Diplomatic immunity is definitely vital for Americans abroad.  While it is important for those going abroad to be well versed in the laws of the countries that they go to, in order to ensure that they will not embarrass their home country, however, it is also important that they are protected when going abroad.  “Their function is not to benefit individuals, but to ensure the smooth and efficient performance of their duties in the interest of comity and of friendly relations between sovereign nations” (Gully-Hart 1334).  This not only protects them from unfair laws that may be targeting them in some way, but also represents a formal agreement between the countries, that helps to strengthen their relationship.

Argue for or against the theory that the courts should not hold a defendant of questionable competency to the standard sentencing guidelines. Provide a rationale to support your response.

The idea of competency is important, as it directly effects whether or not a person is in an adequate mental state to correctly understand the charges that are being filed against them.  This idea is essentially built upon the idea that a person standing trial is doing so as representatives of themselves, and so much understand these aspects, otherwise the court would have to sentence them in a different way.  For this reason, it is important to have specific guidelines for cases in which a person does not seem to have a rational grasp on either the crime or the sentencing for that crime.

This idea is essentially predicated on an ethical approach.  It would have to be the moral responsibility of the state to try individuals in a way that is relevant to the individual’s own mental state.  This is due to the fact that an incompetent defendant’s case can be compromised by their ability to make various decisions regarding their trial.  “A criminal defendant’s ability to provide information helpful to his or her defense and challenge allegations made against him or her may be compromised by an underlying mental disorder, and result in less accurate and just verdicts and outcomes” (Otto 83).  For this reason, those of questionable competency should not be held to the standard sentencing guidelines.

Identify the four (4) goals of criminal law, and discuss the manner in which these four (4) goals effectuate the purpose of protecting the public and preventing the conviction of innocent persons.

The first of the four goals of criminal law is law enforcement.  This includes the police department and other law enforcement teams. This includes enforcing various laws through the apprehension of criminals. Prosecution is often carried out by a prosecutor that works for the government. In this way, a person is tried, and either convicted or proven innocent. For those who are convicted, there is the goal of judiciary justice. This is the imprisonment or sentencing that a person receives for their crimes. Finally, last is the goal of corrections. This includes some type of parole or probation that is geared towards reforming the criminal’s behavior in order to prevent future crimes.

These four goals work to protect the public by preventing the conviction of innocent persons through the framework that has been built into the legal system.  This is why the goals are so important.  Through the application of these four general goals, the justice system can hope to have fair convictions.  Through the application of law enforcement, prosecution, judiciary institutions, and rehabilitation efforts, the system can hope to not only prevent crimes, but reform society in order to prevent future crimes from occurring.

References

Chesney, Eugene J. (1939). Concept of Mens Rea in the Criminal Law. Journal of Criminal Law And Criminology. Vol. 29. Issue 9. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology. 627-643.

Croddy, Marshall. (2012). Criminal Justice in America. Constitutional Rights Foundation. 1-74.

Gully-Hart, Paul. (1999). The Function of State and Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities in International Cooperation in Criminal Matters: The Position in Switzerland. Fordham International Law Journal. Vol. 23. Issue 5. 1334-1342.

Otto, Randy K. (2006). Competency to Stand Trial. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice. University of South Florida. 83-113.