The Ingredients of a Crime

Question 1: Case Study 

The definition of crime as ‘the intentional killing of a human being’ creates two basic ingredients. These are the actus reus, which in this case is the act of killing, while the second ingredient is the mens rea , which in this case represents the intention to kill. It is also important to note that murder is both a legal term and a criminal offense. In the circumstances presented in the case study, the rare scenario, where mens rea comes before actus reus presents itself. This is because the intention in the instant case is simpler than the act. The defendant is described as having angrily punched the victim and this pushed her violently into a swimming pool. Any reasonable person would know that when someone falls into a pool and does not move out, they will drown and die of asphyxiation. The defendant either noticed that the victim was drowning but left her drown or was too angry to care and left her down. In both cases, mens rea is established. However, the chain of reaction initiated by the defendant was now allowed to follow its path to her eventual death. Had this happened, the defendant would have automatically been culpable of murder. 

Instead, a neighbor called paramedics who came, fished the victim out of the water and attempted CPR. When they thought she was in danger, they aggressively introduced a tracheal tube, an act which killed her. The introduction of the tracheal tube introduced the principle of novus actus interveniens which stopped the chain of causation introduced by the defendant and introduced a fresh one (Carp et al., 2010). This act, extinguished any criminal liability in the part of the defendant for murder. However, as the chain of causation would have resulted in death had it not been for the intervention, the defendant is clearly guilty of the inchoate crime of attempted murder. 

Question 2: Critical Analysis of part 1 and 11 of Hamilton, (2011) 

Part 1 of Hamilton (2011) introduces a historical and philosophical foundation of free concept of voluntary act doctrine to the establishment of actus reus and an ingredient of crime in criminal procedure. In his argument, Hamilton descries that the act or omission that forms the initial ingredient of a crime known as actus reus is normally taken at face value with most consideration being given to the second ingredient known as mens rea . Hamilton however, argues that whether or not an act is voluntary must be considered for actus reus to be established as it literary means voluntary act. The psychological condition PTSD is introduced as one of the primary reasons why acts by veterans may not qualify as actus reus as their free will has been taken away from them. However, the article seems to lean towards the assumption that being in active conduct almost always guarantees PTSD and, therefore, eliminates capacity for actus reus. 

Clearly, this blanket immunity from prosecution even after committing crime on a psychological component that is so hard to establish can result in impunity. It is on this premise that exceptions ought to be made for example limited PTSD as a defence only for those who have been diagnosed or institutionalized. This however, is canvassed by Hamilton in part II. The argument made is that PTSD is an acute not chronic disorder and will therefore not have consistent symptoms. This will, therefore, need institutionalization but will still take away voluntariness through the process of automatism. It is possible for automatism to take over suddenly in the same manner as unconsciousness. Therefore, in the same way that being unconscious eliminates capacity for actus reus, Hamilton argues that PTSD makes people incapable of voluntariness thus actus reus . In this case, mens rea does not arise. 

Question 4: Case Study 

The crime of assault in this case is defined as applying force on an individual directly or indirectly without their consent. With regard to the two instruments, the actus reus is the application of force on another person indirectly or directly. The mens rea relates to the presence or absence of consent. With regard to the instant case, the mens rea is extremely straight forward. Fred the defendant and Barney the pedestrian are strangers and in no way could Barney have given Fred the consent to apply force on him. The manner in which Barney crossed the road could in some circumstances have resulted in an implied consent. However, Barney crossed the road in an intersection. Whether or not Barney was crossing the road, Fred should have come to a complete stop first, ensure it is safe then enter the intersection. There was, therefore, no express or implied consent hence mens rea is established. 

With regard to actus reus , the definition is limited to whether or not Fred directly or indirectly applied force on him. The issue of whether or not he intended to does not arise. However, whether or not it was voluntary is an ingredient of actus reus . Fred was lawfully driving a car, which means he was under license to do so. There are basic rules and regulations due when lawfully driving a car which must be followed. This is because not following the rules will result in an accident. A reasonable person is, therefore, assumed to know that breaking the rules will result in an accident. Fred broke the rules by losing focus and attempting to drive through an intersection. This act of illegally attempting to drive through an intersection caused Fred to apply force on Barney. This establishes actus reus which combined with the aforesaid mens rea creates culpability for assault. 

Question 6: Elements of a crime 

Indecent Exposure is defined by three major elements. The first element is part of mens rea and involves the reason for exposure, which is defined as the intention of arousing oneself or gratifying a sexual desire. The second is the acts itself of exposing oneself, which forms the mens rea . The third is a reasonable understanding during the act that it will or might create alarm which also forms part of the mens rea . 

Theft by deception has three main elements. The first element is the intention to steal, which forms the mens rea . The second is the act of obtaining money which creates the main element of actus reus . The third is the use of deceit during the process of obtaining which also forms the secondary part of actus reus . The creation, reinforcement or false impression of value forms part of deceit, thus part of the secondary actus reus . 

Conspiracy to commit a crime has one definite element and two elements which may alternately combine with the first element to establish the crime. The first element is the intention to promote or facilitate a crime which forms the mens rea . The first alternative element is that the entering into an express or implied agreement to commit a crime, or of the defendant is not participating in the actual crime, solicit people to commit the crime. The second alternative is entering into to plan or organize on how the crime will be committed. If one of the two alternatives combine with the first element, a conspiracy has been established. 

This defines the difference between doing a crime an attempt thereof. The first element is that the mens rea , or criminal culpability for the crime attempted must be congruent with that of the crime that would have resulted. The other elements are alternatives with the first being that the crime would have happened if circumstances would have allowed. The second is acting in a way that without further action, the crime would have resulted. The third is committing an act or omission constituting a substantial step in the commission of a crime. A combination of the first element and any of the three results in a crime. 

Question 5 

The charge against beaver has the special ingredient of the minor being the victim of the crime. This creates an element having the knowledge of a fact that the individual in the boot of the car is a minor. Unlike ignorance of law which is not an excuse for committing a crime, ignorance of a fact is. Unless it can be proven that Beavis or a reasonable person would have known that a minor was in the boot then he is not culpable. However, if by the sounds made would have differentiated a minor from a grown up, the ignorance of a fact defence is extinguished. 

Blacking out is a form of unconsciousness and a person who is unconscious cannot under the law be deemed to have acted voluntarily. Further, a mens rea cannot rationally be formed when an individual is unconscious. That it is known that Fred has the problem of acting while unconscious solidifies unconsciousness as a defence. Therefore, the unconsciousness creates an inability to have a qualified actus reus and mens rea . This, therefore, extinguishes the entire charge against Fred. Fred is however, guilty of the lesser crime of intoxication. 

Fred is a trespasser and he has knowingly trespassed into the property of Barney. His act of trespass has, therefore, provided Barney with an exception to the general rule regarding consent. The acts of Barney amount to the actus reus of assault because Barney directly applies force on Fred. However the fact that Fred is a trespasser gives Barney the right to protect his property against him. This eliminates the capacity for mens rea to be established and the crime fails. 

Question 9: Critical Analysis of Eustachewich and Mongelli (2016) 

The article regards a Mr. Naji, an alleged Uber driver according to his lawyer and who is facing a conspiracy charge to wit attempt to provide money to a foreign terrorist organization. According to the article however, Naji is charged with plotting to perform a terrorist attack on Times Square. Had this been the case, Naji would be charged with the stronger charge regarding conspiracy to perform acts of terrorism on the American home soil and not funding a foreign terror organization. However, the explanation given in the article also does not match the headline with regard to plotting to commit a terror attack. In the first instance, the only thing alleged in the article about a terror attack on Times Square is that Naji, told a confidential informant that it could be done. This was at the time a common subject as it had already happened at Nice in France. The second allegation in the article is that Naji said that ISIS wanted the attack carried out. This was also a common topic of discussion at the time. The two issues within the story that completely contradict both the charge of providing material support for a foreign terror organization and plotting a terror attack on times square is that terrorist literature and pictures were posted on his Facebook yet he was still in the USA. The second is that he used his mobile phone to solicit very meagre amounts from his girlfriend to enable him join the ISIS. From the totality of the foregoing, Naji creates the impression of a charlatan who was using ISIS as an excuse to con money from his girlfriend and not a terrorist. 

References 

Carp, R. A., Stidham, R., Manning, K. L., & Holmes, L. M. (2010).  Judicial process in America . Washington, DC: Cq Press. 

Eustachewich, L., & Mongelli, L. (2016). Man arrested for plotting terror attack on Times Square . Retrieved from http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/man-arrested-for-plotting-terror-attack-on-times-square/ 

Hamilton, M. (2011). Reinvigorating actus reus: The case for involuntary actions by veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 16 (2), 340-390