Modern criminal law approaches analysis a little differently. Using a framework in the American Law Institute`s Model Penal Code, murder is a “result” offense because it prohibits any “intentional” or “conscious” behavior that causes the death of another human being and therefore leads to death. “Intentional” in this sense means that the actor had a conscious goal or a goal that the outcome (i.e. the death of another human being) would be achieved. “Knowledge” means that the actor was aware or virtually certain that death would occur, but had no purpose or desire for it to happen. Many States still cling to older terminology, relying on the terms “intentional” to cover both types of mens rea: “intentional” and “conscious”. [6] As you can probably imagine, there must be a correspondence between the mens rea and the act or result required by the crime committed by the accused. In other words, to be convicted of a crime, the accused must have had the necessary intent at the time the act was committed. This is called a match rule. For example: Many criminal laws require a person to “knowingly” engage in illegal activities. The part of the crime that must be committed knowingly depends on the crime.
For example, a drug trafficking law could require the person to “knowingly” import an illegal drug into the United States. If the defendant had received a gift to deliver to someone in the United States and he honestly did not know that the gift contained an illegal drug, then mens rea or necessary mental state was not established and no crime had been committed. The motive cannot be a defence. For example, if a person breaks into a laboratory where drugs are tested on animals, the question of guilt is determined by the presence of actus reus, i.e. penetration without consent and property damage, and mens rea, i.e. the intention to penetrate and cause the damage. The fact that the person may have had a clearly articulated political motive to protest against such tests has no bearing on responsibility. If the reason is relevant, it may be discussed in the trial portion of the trial when the court determines what sentence, if any, is appropriate.
The mens rea requirement is based on the idea of having a guilty mindset and being aware of wrongdoing; However, an accused does not need to know that his or her conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime. Rather, the accused must be aware of the “facts indicating that his conduct meets the definition of a crime.” With the exception of strict liability, these categories of mens rea are defined in subsection 2.02(2) of the OAG. Error, in fact, means that although your behavior meets the definition of a crime in the objective sense, you acted on the basis of false knowledge. For example, a person may objectively sell drugs, but mistakenly believe that they are just selling a bag of baking soda. As a result, this person probably doesn`t have the mens rea necessary or mental intent under a drug law because they never intended to sell an illegal drug, only baking soda (although few people will believe that you honestly thought baking soda could be sold for that much money). The standard test of criminal responsibility at common law is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, that is, “the act is guilty only if reason is guilty”. [1] As a general rule, a person who acted without intellectual fault is not criminally liable. The exceptions are the so-called strict liability offences. If a person intends to harm, but due to a wrong purpose or other cause, the intent is transferred from a targeted victim to an unintentional victim, the case is considered a matter of transferred intent. [2]: 63–64 Some have added a fifth mindset to the MPC classification: “strict liability.” Offences involving strict liability do not require culpability. The mere fact that an accused committed the crime is sufficient to satisfy any examination of his mental state. This absence of a guilty mind would act as the fifth and least reprehensible of the possible mental states.
In the case of an offence involving strict liability, it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the accused committed the unlawful act, regardless of his mental state. Therefore, culpable conduct is not relevant to a no-fault liability offence. Examples of strict liability offences in criminal law are often possession and legal rape. Many commentators criticize the conviction of the defendants on strict liability for lack of mens rea. When a law establishes a mental state or a particular offence, the courts generally apply the required state of mind to each element of the crime. Even if a law does not mention a mental state, courts generally require the government to always prove that the defendant possessed a guilty state of mind in committing the crime. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered that federal criminal laws without the requisite mindset “be understood to contain only the mens rea necessary to separate `unlawful conduct from innocent conduct.` The concept of mens rea developed in England in the second half of the common law era (around the year 1600), when judges began to rule that an act alone can only establish criminal responsibility if accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, while larceny required a criminal state of mind.
Guilt for almost all crimes created under the ICC is established either on the basis of intent, knowledge or reason to believe. Almost all ICC offences are qualified by some word such as “illicit gain or loss”, “dishonesty”, “fraudulent”, “reason for presumption”, “criminal knowledge or intent”, “intentional”, “malicious”, “gratuitous”, “malicious” or “malicious”. All these words refer to the guilty state of mind required at the time of the commission of the offence which is found nowhere in the Penal Code, its essence being reflected in almost every provision of the Indian Penal Code of 1860. Every crime created under the ICC virtually imports the idea of criminal intent or mens rea in one form or another. The Model Penal Code has four different levels of mens rea: purpose (such as intent), knowledge, recklessness and negligence. Today, most crimes, including common law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase that refers to the mens rea requirement.