1. Surname 1
Devante Harris
Professor's Name
Course
July 29, 2021
Discussion
Distinguish between the terms actus reus and mens rea.
contacts:dorineadalyn@gmail.com
What the criminal was contemplating at the moment of the offense is known as Actus
Reus. The illegal act and its attendant frame of consciousness, according to Schmitz (Pg. 149).
The exact conduct must be demonstrated to be purposeful but not with actus Reus. Insanity, for
example, actus rea must be established. If the action was not deliberate, menus rea must be
established. The mental condition essential for committing a crime is mens rea (Schmitz 161).
The purpose of modus rea is to figure out what a perpetrator was contemplating when
committing a crime. It has to be explained what the intention was with Menus rea.
How are they significant in criminal law?
In criminal law, actus res and mens rea are critical in helping determine criminal
responsibility. On occasionally, distinct criminal motives underpin the large facets of an offense
(Schmitz 170). If more than one premeditation is required for a crime, each mal intent must be
2. Surname 2
shown far beyond circumstantial evidence for each element. In civil procedure, the meanings of
actus reus and mens rea aid in determining the factors as to how the incident occurred.
To what standard of law must the defendant's mens rea be proven to gain a criminal conviction?
Must the state prove "what the defendant was thinking at the time of the crime" to prove mens
rea? Why or why not
To obtain a felony record, the plaintiff's mens rea must be shown under the law. The
criminal mindsets classified in a sequence of severity in the Model Penal Code are purposefully,
deliberately, carelessly, and irresponsibly, according to (Schmitz 174). The custodial sentence is
predicated on the perpetrator's mental condition and probable cause. Yes, to establish mens rea,
the state must show what the plaintiff was thinking at the time of the offense. The known illegal
intentions rated in order of guilt are malice premeditation, particular intention, and broader intent
(Schmitz 162). Men's perception aids in determining the motivation and repercussions.
To what standard of law must each element of the actus reus be proven, and why?
Because it determines what offended, the standard of law in the element of actus reus
must be established. The appellant is criminally accountable for the damage since it is a clear
consequence of the plaintiff's illegal act (Schmitz 172). To condemn the perpetrator, the criterion
of actus reus relevant evidence must be shown.
Which of the two legal requirements listed above (i.e., actus reus, mens rea) is more difficult to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial, and why?
Due to strict liability, I believe mens rea is more challenging to produce evidence in a
trial. When the conduct entails a terrible outcome, the perpetrator must inflict harm (Schmitz
3. Surname 3
186). The plaintiff must be the reason, both legally and factually. Fact-based cause implies that
the defendant initiates a series of circumstances that results in a negative outcome. To prove
mens rea, the perpetrator must have engaged intentionally and to harm others.
Work Cited
Schmitz Andy. The elements of a crime.2012 P. 149-186
https://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/introduction-to-criminal-law/s08-the-elements-of-
a-crime.pdf Accessed 29 July 2021
