An element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and willfulness.
MENS REA DEFINITION:
A fundamental principle of CriminalLaw is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person’s awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and ‘ActusReus’, the act itself, is the physical element.
As per dictionaries, mens rea meaning, does not change drastically from the legal prospective it only elucidates the nature to it to bring more light to the Latin term, like:
The Collins (Dictionary), mens rea meaning is , “a criminal intention or knowledge that an act is wrong“. It is assumed to be an ingredient of all criminal offences although some minor statutory offences are punishable irrespective of it.
Whereas the MERRIAM WEBSTER (DICTIONARY), ‘Mens Rea meaning’ is “Criminal Intention”.
INTRODUCTION:
Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is “guilty mind.” The plural of mens rea is ‘mantes rea’. A ‘mens rea’ refers to the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. Establishing the mens rea of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial. The prosecution typically must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind.
The logic of the mens rea variant is impeccable. Crimes are defined by their elements and the prosecution must prove all these elements beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. If the prosecution is unable to prove an element, either because its case is weak or because the accused has sufficient evidence to cast reasonable doubt on the presence of an element of the prosecution’s case, then the accused should be acquitted of a crime requiring that element. The accused using the mens rea variant of diminished capacity seeks simply to use evidence of mental abnormality to cast reasonable doubt on the presence of a mental state element that is part of the definition of the crime charged. Such use of mental abnormality evidence is not a full or partial affirmative defense. Use of mental abnormality evidence to deny the prosecution’s prima facie case is functionally and doctrinally indistinguishable from the use of any other kind of evidence for the same purpose, and it thus does not warrant a special name, as if it were a unique doctrine. The general question of whether accused ought to be allowed to negate mens rea using probative evidence is different from the specific evidentiary question of whether mental abnormality evidence is more or less reliable than other evidence used to negate mens rea.
IMPORTANCE OF MENS REA:
The mens rea requirement is premised upon the idea that one must possess a guilty state of mind and be aware of his or her misconduct; however, a defendant need not know that their conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime. Rather, the defendant must be conscious of the “facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense.”
If a statute specifies a mental state or a particular offense, courts will usually apply the requisite mental state to each element of the crime. Moreover, even if a statute refrains from mentioning a mental state, courts will usually require that the Prosecution still prove that the defendant possessed a guilty state of mind during the commission of the crime.
Mental states are usually organized hierarchically by the offender’s state of blameworthiness. Generally, the blameworthiness of an actor’s mental state corresponds to the seriousness of the crime. Higher levels of blameworthiness typically correlate with more severe liability, and harsher sentencing.
CONSEQUENCES OF NO MENS REA:
When one evaluates a person’s crime the law requires that the intention of a person’s mind must be evaluated before passing of any incidental sentences leading to conviction. A person is to be a human and to human, one must “err”. Based on such principles even the Indian Penal Code provides certain exceptions which if devoid Mens Rea, one must not be punished.
Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as “mens rea,” which is Latin for a “guilty mind.” In other words, what was the defendant’s mental state and what did the defendant intend when the crime was committed. Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime.
Careless vs. Criminal
Carelessness is generally referred to as “negligence” in legal terminology, and generally results in only civil liability. However, at some point general carelessness turns into something more culpable, and some criminal statutes have heightened negligence standards such as criminal or reckless negligence. For example, it may be simple negligence to leave items out on your sidewalk that cause a neighbor to fall and hurt themselves. It may be more than simple negligence, however, if you left out a chainsaw, some knives and flammable material on your sidewalk, resulting in your neighbor’s serious injury.
Intentional vs. Unintentional
Intentional harmful behavior is often criminal, but unintentional harmful behavior comes in two basic forms. The first is “mistake in fact” and the second is “mistake of law.”
Mistake in fact means that, although your behavior fit the definition of a crime in an objective sense, you were acting based on mistaken knowledge. For example, a person could objectively be selling drugs, but mistakenly believe that he or she is just selling a bag of baking soda. As a result, that person is likely lack the necessary mens rea or mental intent necessary under a drug law, because he or she never intended to sell an illegal drug, just baking soda (although few people will believe that you honestly thought baking soda could be sold for that much money).
Mistake of law however, will almost never save you from criminal liability. You’ve probably heard the phrase that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” and that’s exactly how the law sees it. Using the example above, mistake of law would be if the person knew that he or she was selling cocaine, but honestly believed that it was legal to do so. Unlike mistake of fact, this would not relieve you of liability. It may seem slightly unfair that the person who was essentially dumb enough to believe that the white powder was baking soda gets off, but the well-intentioned person who honestly thought it was legal to sell cocaine doesn’t get off. However, allowing ignorance of the law as a defense would discourage people from learning the law and undermine the effectiveness of the legal system.
INSTANCES WHERE MENS REA IS NOT REQUIRED:
In modern times a considerable body of penal offenses has been created in which no intent or other mental state need be shown. Absence of mens rea has always characterized a few offenses such as statutory rape, in which knowledge that the victim is below the age of consent is not necessary for liability, and bigamy, which often may be committed even though the parties believe in complete good faith that they are free to marry. Mens rea need not be shown in a number of statutes regulating economic or other activities, commonly termed public welfare offenses, carrying minor penalties.
Strict Liability
Finally, there are some criminal laws that don’t require any mens rea or mental state. These strict liability laws apply to certain acts which deserve criminal punishment regardless of intent, usually those involving minors. This is best illustrated by statutory rape laws which punish the act of having sex with a minor even if the perpetrator honestly thought that the minor was over 18. These laws often seem harsh, but they are grounded in the protection of minors.
CONSPIRACY
Some criminal laws use the term malicious and willful to describe the necessary conduct. Generally, this adds nothing that isn’t already covered by intentionally and knowingly. However, in some murder statutes it is a “heightened” form of intentionally/knowingly, and will result in a higher degree murder charge. The difference being that it is one thing to get mad at someone and kill them in passion, but it’s quite another thing to devise an elaborate plan to stalk and kill a victim.
MENS REA CASE LAWS:
- Engish Mens rea Case Laws:
Brend v. Wood (1946)
It was held in the present mens rea case law that unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind.”
Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895)
- There is a presumption that mens rea, or ill purpose, or awareness of the wrongfulness of the act, is a fundamental part in every offence.
- Unless the opposite is proven, mens rea is assumed in every statute.
- There is a presumption that mens rea, or evil intent, or knowledge of the act’s wrongfulness, is an essential ingredient in every offence; however, that presumption may be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.
Indian Mens rea Case Laws
State of Maharashtra v. M.H.George (1964)
This case is related to the country’s economic situation. it this case, the Supreme Court adopted the strict liability concept rather than the maxim.
Prabhat Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar(2021)
It was held by the Supreme Court in the present mens rea case law that Mens Rea’s absence, i.e. malicious or evil intent, is not a relevant factor in matters of medical negligence. At the same time, the Court has stressed the need to follow the correct procedure when trying any criminal complaint involving medical negligence.
Subhash Shamrao Pachunde v. State of Maharashtra (2005)
The Supreme Court held that the involvement of special mens rea, which consists of 4 mental attitudes in the presence of any of which the lesser offence becomes greater, is important in determining the distinction between culpable homicide and murder.
CONCLUSION:
Motive is an indirect way to prove that something was done intentionally or knowingly. For example, a defendant in an assault case may claim that he punched the victim by accident and thus didn’t have the necessary intent for an assault. If the prosecution can demonstrate that the defendant and victim had been arguing shortly before the alleged assault, that motive can serve as circumstantial evidence that a defendant really did intend to punch the victim. Alternatively, defendants can use the prosecution’s lack of evidence of a motive as a “reasonable doubt” to avoid criminal liability.
Another consideration in dispensing with a mens rea requirement is ignorance or mistake. It is commonly said that ignorance of fact excuses from liability, whereas ignorance of law does not. Although this simple formula holds true in wide areas of the criminal law, there are important exceptions, especially in the area of absolute liability offenses. In such cases, a mistake of law is increasingly being allowed as a defense, especially under statutes that impose harsh penalties.
Finally, all criminal systems make provision for certain types of diminished responsibility such as intoxication, infancy, or insanity. All countries specify a particular age at which youths may be held responsible for the consequences of their acts. Intoxication is commonly held not to be a defense to a crime except insofar as it negates the existence of a particular mental state. For instance, in Indian law, person who commit murder while intoxicated are convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder than murder if it is found that they were incapable of entertaining the “malice aforethought” requisite to a finding of murder.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
