Elements of crimes

11 Key excerpts on "Elements of crimes"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Criminal Law

  • Joel Samaha(Author)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  These building blocks are the elements of a crime that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict individual defendants. Here’s the list: 1. Criminal act (actus reus) 2. Criminal intent (mens rea) 3. Concurrence 4. Attendant circumstances 5. Bad result (causing a criminal harm) These are illustrated in the Elements of Criminal Conduct Crimes box. LO1 elements of a crime to convict, the prosecu- tion must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) a criminal act (in all crimes), (2) criminal intent (in some crimes), (3) concurrence (in all crimes), (4) attendant circumstances (in some crimes), and (5) that criminal conduct caused a criminal harm (in bad result crimes only) ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT CRIMES Actus Reus (Voluntary Act) A. Mens Rea (General Intent) B. Mentes Reae (MPC levels of culpability) 1. purposely or 2. knowingly or 3. recklessly or 4. negligently Circumstance Not required but usually included Criminal Conduct Copyright 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 97 THE ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY All crimes have to include a voluntary criminal act (actus reus or “evil act”; also referred to as the physical element in crime). That’s why it’s called the first principle of criminal liability. The vast majority of minor crimes against public order and morals (the subject of Chapter 12) include neither mens rea (criminal intent, often referred to as the mental element), nor the element of causation, nor conduct that causes a bad result (Chapter 4).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Criminal Law NQF3 SB

  TVET FIRST

  • B Smit(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  50 Module 4 Topic 2: The elements of crime The act as an element of crime Module 4 Introduction Crimes can be committed by l Doing something (a positive act/commission). l Not doing something (omission). A thought, desire or intention to commit a crime is not punishable without all the other elements of the crime being present. A person who thinks about how he or she would, in the future, contravene the law and how he or she would commit the crime, is not punishable. The elements of a crime differ from the general to the specific. For example, in the Law of South Africa ( Lawsa ) (published by LexisNexis), it is stated that there are general elements such as criminal liability which apply to all crimes, and some specific requirements which must be proven only in respect of a particular crime. Crime cannot be strictly defined and, therefore, needs to be analysed in terms of the conduct concerned (the commission or omission). Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) defines an offence as an act or omission punishable by law, and, in R v Zinn 1946 AD 346, the court stated that “the common conception of a crime is any contravention of the law for which the State may exact punishment”. Since the advent of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, criminal law has been developed to include the statutory elements of crime. In addition, under the Constitution, certain crimes have been declared unconstitutional on the basis of the elements of these crimes. Overview In this module, you will discuss the requirements in order for an act or conduct (commission or omission) to constitute a crime, giving relevant examples. In addition, you will learn how causation is linked to this. Units in this module • Unit 4.1: Requirements for an act to be regarded as an element of crime • Unit 4.2: Omissions • Unit 4.3: Causation contravene: to disobey or fail to comply with New word 51 Module 4 Example 4.1: Right to equality, privacy and dignity 1.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Atsegbua: Criminal Law in Nigeria

  • Lawrence Atsegbua, Violet Aigbokhaevbo, Sunday Daudu(Authors)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Malthouse Press

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 2 ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION It is a fundamental requirement of received English law that before an accused person is convicted for an offence his guilt must be proved. There must be coincidence of the physical and mental element. These are the actus reus and the mens rea. It must, however, be pointed out that both terms are absent in the Criminal and Penal codes. 1 In R. v. Miller, 2 Lord Diplock expressed his disapproval of the use of the terms actus reus and mens rea thus: 3 My Lords, it would I think be conducive to clarity of analysis of the ingredients of a crime that is created by statute, as are the greater majority of criminal offences today, if we were to avoid bad Latin and instead to think and speak about the conduct of the accused and his state of mind at the time of that conduct, instead of speaking of actus reus and mens rea. Despite the above reservations by his Lordship, both terms are still being used in England and also in Nigeria. In justification of their continual use, Clarkson and Keating submit that: 4 We shall analyse crimes in terms of actus reus, mens rea…We do this for the simple reason that as long as one appreciates 1 See Okonkwo & Naish, Criminal Law in Nigeria, 2 nd Edit (Lagos: Spectrum, 1980) at p. 43 2 {1983) AC 161 3 Ibid., at p. 175 4 Criminal Law 7 th Edit (London: Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010) at p. 70-71. See also McAlhone & Huxley Binns, Criminal Law: The Fundamentals, 2 nd Edit (London: Thomson, Sweet & Maxwell, 2010) at p. 12 Elements of Criminal Liability 13 that these terms are no more than tools, they are tools that can usefully aid the clear exposition of the rules of criminal law.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Criminal Law: The General Part

  • Carlson Anyangwe(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Langaa RPCIG

    (Publisher)

  Again, the definition of an offence may require a consequence to result from the act for there to be criminal liability. Since these Latin terms are apt to mislead, many academic writers are wary of using the ‘ actus reus ’ and ‘ mens rea ’ dichotomy as a framework for analysing the ingredients of an offence. They do not follow the ‘ actus reus ’-‘ mens rea ’ distinction which most English authors tend to make. 1 Some prefer to distinguish between ‘the external elements’ and ‘the fault elements’ (intention, negligence, recklessness, knowledge) of an offence 2 ; between ‘conduct’ and ‘culpability’ 3 ; between ‘the physical elements’ and ‘the mental elements’ 4 ; between ‘the prohibited conduct’ and ‘intention and other fault elements’; and, between ‘unlawful conduct’ and ‘fault’ 5 . These various distinctions are based on the fact that the definition of any particular offence nearly always consists of two sorts of elements, physical and mental. These terms themselves are mere approximations and are used as mere terms of convenience. Before proceeding to discuss the notion of the mental element in crime under the Penal Code, a preliminary issue relating to the relevance of the English criminal law concept of mens rea to that Code may be disposed of at this juncture. Section 1. Relevance of English doctrine of m m ens rea under the Penal Code In English criminal law there is a general doctrine known as the doctrine of mens rea . The law in this country has a historical link to the law of England. The body of law received in this country from England consists of the common law of England, the doctrines of equity and the statutes of general 1 Hall J, General Principles of Criminal Law , London, 1960; Wooton B, Crime and the Criminal Law , Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1981; Ashworth A, Principles of Criminal Law , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991; Allen MJ, Textbook on Criminal Law , Blackstone, London, 1991.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Criminal Law

  • Thomas Gardner, Terry Anderson(Authors)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  State statutes vary on how they define the degrees of criminal intent. That is, with respect to an element of the offense, the mental state of the defendant as to that element can have various formulations. For example, to be convicted of the crime of possession of stolen property, almost all state statutes require that the defendant have knowledge that the property was stolen. The actus reus is the physical possession of the property; the mens rea is the intent to possess the property; the scienter (knowledge) element is knowledge that the property was stolen. (Scienter is discussed later in this chapter.) Other crimes might require only that the defendant was negligent about an element of the crime. For example, in most states the crime of vehicular homicide can be established by proof that the defendant unintentionally caused the death of another, while operat- ing a motor vehicle recklessly or with gross negligence. reasonable doubt Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that it is not enough to prove it was more likely than not that an element of the crime was true. The proof must be such that a reasonable person could not conclude the element was not true. actus reus The criminal act. mens rea The criminal intent or state of mind. Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-300 CHAPTER 3: Essential Elements of a Crime 57 The Model Penal Code (MPC) is a proposed criminal code drafted by the Amer- ican Law Institute, a group of lawyers, judges, and law professors. Many states have used parts of the MPC when drafting their own criminal codes. Section 2.02 of the MPC suggests the following formulation of the mental element: Minimum Requirements of Culpability. Except as provided in Section 2.05, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negli- gently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Teaching of Criminal Law

  The pedagogical imperatives

  • Kris Gledhill, Ben Livings, Kris Gledhill, Ben Livings(Authors)
  • 2016(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  As the chart demonstrates, this method of element analysis still makes use of the actus reus/mens rea distinction, but supplements it with the further distinction of conduct, circumstance, and result. Take the example of criminal damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971, s1). The conduct element of the actus reus is the bodily movement required for the offence (e.g., throwing a stone), the result element is the required consequence of that movement (e.g., damaging property, such as smashing a window), and the circumstance element relates to any surrounding required facts (e.g., that the property (window) damaged did not belong to D). Each element is required for liability, in addition to their corresponding mens rea. The final ulterior mens rea element (element 7) is my own addition to the mechanism (Child, 2014) and refers to mens rea requirements that do not correspond to elements within the actus reus (e.g., being reckless as to the endangerment of life, for aggravated criminal damage).

  Table 3.1

  	Actus Reus	Mens rea
  Conduct element	1	4
  Circumstance element	2	5
  Result element	3	6
  Ulterior mens rea element	7

  Every criminal offence can be broken down and discussed using this method of element analysis. Certain offences, such as aggravated criminal damage, include requirements within all seven elements. However, this will not always be the case: most offences do not include an ulterior mens rea requirement (element 7), and conduct crimes do not include result requirements (elements 3 and 6). Thus the chart can be used to explore all offences, but this does not mean that all offences must include requirements relating to all elements. Where an offence is analysed, which is not generally discussed using element analysis or even offence analysis (e.g., manslaughter, theft, etc.), such offences can still be introduced using element analysis as a point of consistency before moving on to explain how the offence is alternatively discussed in the courts so that students are not confused when reading cases. In this way, students are provided with a universal tool for analysis, but they are also taught to engage with the inconsistencies of law in practice.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Understanding Criminal Law

  • Rodger Geary(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Routledge-Cavendish

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 2

  The Elements of a Crime

  Actus Reus and Mens Rea

  As we have noted, a crime is conduct which has been defined as such by statute or by common law. It is a general principle of the criminal law that a person may not be convicted of a crime unless he has acted in a prohibited way with a defined state of mind. The prohibited act is called the actus reus and the defined state of mind is the mens rea of the crime. The main exceptions to this principle are ‘state of affairs’ offences, where no conduct as such need be established, and crimes of ‘strict liability’, where no mens rea need be proved. Of course, a defendant who commits an actus reus with the appropriate mens rea may still avoid conviction if he has a valid defence. A crime can therefore be said to consist of an actus reus and mens rea together with the absence of a valid defence.

  A convenient way of remembering this is:

  crime = AR + MR + absence of a valid defence.

  Characteristics of an Actus Reus

  Definition

  An actus reus consists of all the elements in the statutory or common law definition of the offence except the accused’s mental elements. This can be remembered as:

  actus reus = definition of the offence – mens rea.

  Analysis of the Actus Reus

  An actus reus can be identified by looking at the definition of the offence in question and subtracting the mens rea

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Core Documents on International Law 2022-23

  • Karen Hulme(Author)
  • 2022(Publication Date)
  • Hart Publishing

    (Publisher)

  382 Elements of crimes 2002 5 .Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility or the absence thereof are generally not specified in the Elements of crimes listed under each crime 1 6 .The requirement of ‘unlawfulness’ found in the Statute or in other parts of international law, in particular international humanitarian law, is generally not specified in the Elements of crimes .7 .The Elements of crimes are generally structured in accordance with the following principles: (a) As the Elements of crimes focus on the conduct, consequences and circumstances associated with each crime, they are generally listed in that order; (b) When required, a particular mental element is listed after the affected conduct, consequence or circumstance; (c) Contextual circumstances are listed last .8 .As used in the Elements of crimes, the term ‘perpetrator’ is neutral as to guilt or innocence .The elements, including the appropriate mental elements, apply, mutatis mutandis, to all those whose criminal responsibility may fall under articles 25 and 28 of the Statute .9 .A particular conduct may constitute one or more crimes .10 .The use of short titles for the crimes has no legal effect .Article 6 Genocide Introduction With respect to the last element listed for each crime: (a) The term ‘in the context of’ would include the initial acts in an emerging pattern; (b) The term ‘manifest’ is an objective qualification; (c) Notwithstanding the normal requirement for a mental element provided for in article 30, and recognizing that knowledge of the circumstances will usually be addressed in proving genocidal intent, the appropriate requirement, if any, for a mental element regarding this circumstance will need to be decided by the Court on a case-by-case basis .Article 6(a) Genocide by killing Elements 1 .The perpetrator killed 2 one or more persons .2 .Such person or persons belonged to a

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Law for Criminologists

  A Practical Guide

  • Ursula Smartt(Author)
  • 2008(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications Ltd

    (Publisher)

  5 ESSENTIAL CRIMINAL LAW

  Overview

  Chapter 5 examines:

  • The building blocks of a criminal offence: the actus reus and the mens rea
  • The concept of causation
  • The constituent elements of homicide
  • The concept of an act of omission
  • The concept of recklessness
  • The distinctions between non-fatal offences against the person
  • The changing nature of sex crimes and legislation

     

  Chapter 5 provides you with the basic building blocks to a criminal offence: the actus reus and the mens rea elements to a crime. We will focus on the meanings of causation and highlight the developments in recklessness.

  The multifaceted area of homicide will be discussed as to how the law differentiates between murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. A resulting conviction will determine whether the defendant is given a determinate or a life sentence.

  There then follows a discussion on the topic of non-fatal offences against the person and whether present legislation might be outdated for the courts to deal with modern-day offences.

  The chapter closes with recent sexual offences legislation where it will be demonstrated that common law in this area has largely been ‘codified’ in definitions of structured statutory legislation within the Sexual Offences Act 2003 .

  5.1    Elements of a crime: actus reus and mens rea

  In establishing liability for a criminal offence, the prosecution must prove that the defendant possessed both the actus reus and the mens rea to the criminal offence.

   

  Actus reus – the conduct element

     

  Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (An act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is also guilty)1

   

  The ‘actual criminal act’ – in Latin, actus reus

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Criminal Law

  • Charles P. Nemeth(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  83 Chapter 3 Actus Reus and Mens Rea KEYWORDS Corpus delicti: The body of evidence that constitutes the offense; the objective proof that a crime has been committed . General intent: The intent that must exist in all crimes. Intent: A state of mind wherein the person knows and desires the consequences of his act which, for purposes of criminal liability, must exist at the time the offense is committed. Judgment: A declaration by a court of the conviction of a criminal defendant and the punish-ment to be imposed. Knowledge: Awareness that a fact or circumstance probably exists. Negligence: Failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation. Omission: The act, fact, or state of leaving something out or failing to do something that is required by duty, procedure, or law. Reckless: Characterized by the creation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the lives, safety, or rights of others, and by a conscious and sometimes wanton and willful disregard for or indifference to that risk that is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reason-able person would exercise in like circumstances. Specific intent: Intent that is essential to certain crimes and, which, as an essential element of the crime, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Strict liability: Liability in a crime where no specific or general mens rea is required. The con-duct itself, even if innocently engaged in, results in criminal liability. Willful blindness: Deliberate failure to make a reasonable inquiry of wrongdoing despite suspi-cion or an awareness of the high probability of its existence. IDEA AND MENTAL STATE IN CRIMINAL CULPABILITY Crimes, for the most part, require two major components: an act, known as actus reus, and a mind, known as mens rea. And these two components need an integration of sorts.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Crime of Aggression under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

  • Carrie McDougall(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  104 The third element of the crime outlines the need for the act of aggression to have been committed. It is paired with an individualised mental element. The fourth element of the crime requires that: ‘[t]he perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established that such a use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations’. The general introduction to the elements clarifies that ‘[t]here is no requirement to prove that the perpetrator has made a 102 As to the drafting history of Article 30 and the Elements of crimes see Roger S. Clark, ‘The Mental Elements in International Criminal Law: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Elements of Offences’ (2001) 12(3) Criminal Law Forum 291. 103 Appendix II, Annex II, June 2009 SWGCA Report, [10]. Cf. Gadirov, ‘Article 9’, 522, who states that ‘The conjunctive “and” implies that the mental element is composed of two sub-elements: first, intellectual sub-element – knowledge; second, moral sub-element – intent. This means that a state of mind of a perpetrator must encompass both sub- elements in order that responsibility be imputed to him or her.’ 104 June 2009 SWGCA Report, [14]. 190 the individual conduct elements of the crime legal evaluation as to whether the use of armed force was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations’. According to the drafters of the Elements of the crime of aggression, it was ‘agreed that it was important to clarify that intention should be required for the individual’s conduct, i.e. the planning, preparation, initiation and execution of the State act, but that this would not include an intent that the State commit an act contrary to the UN Charter’.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book