Mens Rea I
It
is a long established principle of criminal law that no crime can be committed
without an evil mind and therefore the mental element or the state of the mind,
at the time the crime was committed, becomes crucial when determining if an
offender is guilty or otherwise.
This
mental element is commonly known as Mens Rea and it is derived from the Latin
phrase “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which simply means that
the act is not culpable (deserving blame) unless the mind is guilty. There are
however certain exceptions for example when a crime occurs as a result of
negligence.
Criminal
law as we know it came into existence as a result of actions committed as acts
of vengeance or it is the cumulative result of acts committed as retaliatory
actions for injuries, physical or otherwise, suffered or incurred, because of
long standing enmities or a desire to seek revenge or to acquire some form of
satisfaction or gratification for loss that has resulted from the actions of
another.
The
most common motives for homicides to date include revenge, jealousy and
cheating spouses/partners. Homicides are more often than not, due to feelings
or emotions that are prompted by actions that anger the offender or make him or
her feel publicly humiliated and actions that, in the case of the offender, are
perceived to be deep-seated injuries that fester over time.
These
are obviously factors that can be overcome or addressed with proper treatment,
be it medical or psychological, provided that the symptoms are identified in
time.
Therefore
if you’re someone who has been aggrieved in some way or other, it is important
that you seek some sort of remedial advice or therapy, as soon as possible.
It
is crucial that we realize who the initial victim was and address the matter
before we allow it to deteriorate or degenerate into a situation where the
victim becomes the aggressor especially in cases of revenge or in cases of
ex-partners and ex-spouses. Criminal law in itself evolved around this type of
situations, so don’t throw you life away because of someone else’s actions.
The
earliest criminal law cases assigned guilt to anyone who committed the act by
virtue of him or her being the owner of the instrument that caused death, harm
or injury. Therefore if a person owned a gun and fired off a shot, and that
shot killed someone, than he or she was guilty by virtue of owning the gun,
regardless of whether it was done innocently or otherwise.
Likewise
if someone owned a bull that trampled on another person and caused death or
serious injury than the owner of the bull was guilty regardless of whether that
person had trespassed on private property or otherwise. In the same manner,
someone who had merely attempted a crime, but had not succeeded, was not liable
because there was no crime attributed to him or her.
The
only type of killing that was allowed was that which was done in the name of
the king or the crown and all other acts of killing whether accidental or
otherwise were deemed to be a crime despite the lack of criminal intent
including acts of self defense.
There
were attempts in certain jurisdictions however to allow the offender to pay-off
his or her crime as opposed to being punished, and this was basically done to
negate the element of revenge or counter the element of vindictiveness.
If
for example there was no intention to kill, than insisting that the offender is
punished in a specific way, would simply continue or prologue the cycle of
action and retaliation which would be, in the long run counterproductive and
detrimental to all parties concerned.
The
mental element came into the picture somewhere in the 12th century and it made
a somewhat piecemeal entry. Self-defense for example was still a crime but it
was pardonable by the sovereign and that indicates that the law had slowly
started to place more emphasis on the mental element.
It
was only towards the end of the 12th century, when Roman Law swept across
Europe like a tidal wave, that the concept of Mens Rea, really began to take
shape and it allowed offenders to present their defense and punishment was
based on a trial. Trials were often adversarial i.e. both parties would present
their case in front of a judge who’d act as a mediator.
“It
was for the good of the whole world that one race stood apart from its
neighbors, turned away its eyes at an early time from the fascinating pages of
the Corpus Juris, and more Roman than the Romanists, made the grand experiment
of a new formulary system” – F.W. Maitland, English Legal Historian.
It
was, in truth, the advent of Canon Law or Church Law, which insisted that the
interpretation of any sin required a mental element as well as a physical
element that made the mental element a crucial component in establishing guilt.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment