CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

Distinguish between the terms actus reus and mens rea. How are they significant in criminal law?

Actus reus – a Latin term, “the guilty act”. Proper identification of the act is often the most difficult. (Wright, R., 2013). A judge or jury has to determine what specific acts were prohibited by the statue and if the defendant engaged in those specified acts.

Mens rea – examines the person’s mental ability, state of mind once a crime has been committed. Once, Mens rea has occurred, the prosecution is liable to prove without admissible evidence that criminal intent was exemplified in order to convict the defendant.

The significance of Actus reus and Mens rea in criminal law is based on the difference of crime and the conviction or being not guilty once proof of either act is attained.

Define how concurrence works with actus reus and mens rea to lead to criminal liability. Why is concurrence so significant?

Concurrence works with Actus reus and Mens rea to lead to criminal liability to determine the order the crime occurred. For example, my neighbor was at a local park in 2009 playing basketball, had a few altercations with some neighborhood kids. While at the park playing basketball, the opposing dudes passed twice and the third time they passed, the driver stopped and went on the court and shot him 6 times in the back. He seen my neighbor turn and run away when he heard the first shot not paying attention that the bullet hit him and the shooter ran behind him and continued to shot. In Louisiana shooting someone constantly or being present at the scene and to leave and come back to the location is considered pre-mediation murder, preplanned.

Which of the three legal requirements listed above (i.e., actus reus, mens rea, or concurrence) is more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial?

In most cases, I would have to say that Mens rea is more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial. For examination, once the person has been incarcerated, awaited the court date for arraignment, you have to provide a thorough examination on the person psychologically to determine if the person is actually capable of committing the crime or had some sort of influence to commit the crime. Some examinations are accurate and some vary depending on the type of crime and interrogating involved.

REFERNCES:

Wright, R. (2013). Introduction to Criminal Law and Procedure. San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

SECOND STUDENT RESPONSE FROM Dawn Murray

A) Distinguish between the terms actus reus and mens rea. How are they significant in criminal law?

· Actus reus is a guilty act while mens rea is a guilty mind.

· Mens rea describes how a person’s mental state of mind informs a criminal act.

· Actus reus is either a specific action or in some cases the absence of action.

Actus reus is the behavior that the criminal law intends to punish. It is either an act of commission such as stealing, or an act of omission such as failing to file a tax return. Whether a person commits an act of commission or an act of omission, they are still doing something that is against the law. Mens rea is only punishable for voluntarily actions such as holding a gun and choosing to pull the trigger. When one decides to pull the trigger, they volunteered to pull the trigger knowing it could possibly take someone’s life.

B) Define how concurrence works with actus reus and mens rea to lead to criminal liability. Why is concurrence so significant?

Concurrence works with actus reus and mens rea in the manner of determining if the criminal act and the criminal mind with intent occurred at the same time.

The reason concurrence is so significant is due to the actus reus and the mens rea needs to occur simultaneously. If the actus reus does not hold concurrence to the mens rea, then there has been no crime committed, at least not until there is proof that a person state of mind was indeed simultaneous to their criminal act.

C) Which of the three legal requirements listed above (actus reus, mens rea, or concurrence) is more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial?

The concurrence would be more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It is easier to prove what a person’s state of mind is or what their intentions or guilty act is. But to prove both the state of mind and the intentions at the same time would be much harder to prove. A prosecutor would need to have much more evidence to prove that the state of mind and intent occurred at the same time.

References:

Wright, R. (2013). Introduction to Criminal Law and Procedure. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education Inc.