The field of law is involved with different codes which are nearly similar but are differentiated with slight act and states of mind when a crime is being committed. In the criminal law, the juries look into finer details before making a final verdict on a given case, mostly the fatal cases such as homicide. Homicide is one of the criminal offenses that the courts provide a lot of seriousness before making the final verdict because consequences of such crimes are generally fatal. In this case therefore, the court look into finer details such as the states of the mind and how it had a massive or slight impact on the person’s criminal act. The state of mind is thus a critical element in deciding whether the person should receive a minor or severe punishment with the regards to homicide act committed. In most case, such details as underlined by the law such as the mens rea and actus Reus, as well as the concurrence, have saved a lot of innocent people from severe punishment. In this article, some of these laws and their applications form the basis of the discussion.
Mens rea and Actus Reus
Mens rea and actus Reus are two laws which are close and are typically used closely in the court of rules when making a judgment concerning any form of homicide. None of these terms is used singly as the decision to pick another one depends on the other. Mens rea means having a guilty mind. This law is coined from the fact that there are those who commit homicide unintentionally. In this case, therefore, it would be wrong to punish those who have no criminal minds just because of their random act. The guilty mind, in this case, is where the person has an intention from the memory to act criminally ( Beecher-Monas & Garcia-Rill, 2017). The assumption, in this case, is that human being is controlled by the states of their mind which are reflected from the actions. For example, assume a person is driving a car in a busy street and accidentally runs on someone. In this case, there is no intent, and it means that the driver had no intention from the mind to commit a crime. Take also an example where there is a drunkard who drives carelessly and runs on a kid. Inthis case, the person cannot be charged with first-degree murder. In thesesituations, the accident did not originate from the states of mind. In all these cases, such people are not guilty becauseof their status of innocent thoughts. In this case, therefore, they are charged with reckless homicide and not first-degree murder.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, Actus Reus is that act committed which is guilty. This is act itself which is guilty and overt. The law is coined from the fact that the law must punish a guilty act. In this case, therefore, society chooses to discipline them, not the mind. Guilt action occurs in everyday life. In some case, these acts are committed when a person is consciousof what they are doing ( Beecher-Monas & Garcia-Rill, 2017). In such a case, the law punished the conscious mind; however, for those situations where the criminal act is committed unconsciously, the law punishes the action not the states of consciousness. Take an example of a driver (A) who has an intention to cause an accident between Driver B and an oncoming bus. Suppose the Driver B misses the accident but hits the Driver A's car that intended to create an accident killing the Driver A on the spot, should the driver B charged of homicide? The answer, in this case, is no. The act is guilty because it caused an accident. However, it was done under the unconscious mind, and thus the person is not legible to be accused of murder.
Concurrence
Concurrence is another universal law and uses together with the mens rea and actus Reus to rule a homicide case. Thejudge must prove that there was a relationship between the guilty mind and the criminal act for the accused to be renderedliable. It is an implication that the state of mind, must coincide with the guilt, act for the offender to be declared guilty. In most cases, these do not happen( Beecher-Monas & Garcia-Rill, 2017). In a situation where they do occurs. It is named concurrence or the contemporaneity or the simultaneity. Take the example of a person in a party while drinking alcohol. Afterdrinking to his fullest, he is excited about the party and decides to draw his gun and fire severally on air without aiming any person. However, due to his state of mind, his hands shake, and he ended up firing a last short that kills a person. Having noticed the actions, he rushed to help the person killed but finds that theperson is his enemy, the lough that at last, his enemy is dead. In this case, the person is not guilty of homicide. Thematter that is weighty in this case is his states of mind. He did not intend to kill the enemy; it was an accidental act. In this case, there was no coincident and thus no concurrence. However, he planned to kill the person by pretending to fire on the air before shooting him; there is concurrence between the state of mind and the actioncommitted. In such a case the person is guilty of action and perception.
Specific and General Intent Crime
These are terms which are used closely in the criminal. Specific intent crimes refer to the state of mind at the time the person is committing the crime. The legal law categorizes a crime under the particular intent crimes when it is not only done with the intent, but with the additional subjective purpose or objective intent. Take an example of theft. A thief has two intentions when committing a crime ( Pezzella&Fetzer, 2017). The first intent is to steal property from the owner intentionally. The second intent is to deprive the owner of the property. In this case, theft is a specific intent crime because the thief does not only have the purpose of omitting the offense but also has the objective of permanently depriving the owner the property that belonged to him or her. On the other hand, there is a general intent crime which is also based on the state of mind at the time the crime is committed. However, it is different from specificintentcrimebecause in this case, the perpetrator has oneintention, which is to determine the action which the law describes as unlawful. For instance rape, in this case, the perpetrator intent is to rape. The rape happens without any other objective intention of killing the victim; it is described as a general intent crime.
References
Beecher-Monas, E., & Garcia-Rill, E. (2017). Actus Reus, Mens Rea, and Brain Science: What Do Volition and Intent Mean. Ky. LJ , 106 , 265.
Pezzella, F. S., &Fetzer, M. D. (2017). The likelihood of injury among bias crimes: An analysis of general and specific bias types. Journal of interpersonal violence , 32 (5), 703-729.
