Difference between revisions of "Mens rea"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The trend in trials and in legislation has been to weaken the requirement of proof of mens rea. A utilitarian view of justice does not depend on mens rea, while a moral view of justice does. Mens rea usually combined with [[actus reus]] is used to produce criminal liability. | The trend in trials and in legislation has been to weaken the requirement of proof of mens rea. A utilitarian view of justice does not depend on mens rea, while a moral view of justice does. Mens rea usually combined with [[actus reus]] is used to produce criminal liability. | ||
| − | + | William Blackstone famously observed, “in order to have a crime, there must be a vicious will.”<ref>William Blackstone, Commentaries 21.</ref> However, in the modern regulatory state there are increasing attempts, particularly at the federal level, to create crimes that do not require proof of ''mens rea''. | |
| + | |||
| + | == References == | ||
| + | |||
| + | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
[[Category:Latin Legal Terms]] | [[Category:Latin Legal Terms]] | ||
Revision as of 00:19, May 30, 2007
Mens rea is the mental state of a criminal defendant. In Latin it means "Guilty mind". Usually there are four levels of mens rea in crimes, in descending order of culpability:
1. intent
2. knowledge
3. recklessness
4. negligence
The trend in trials and in legislation has been to weaken the requirement of proof of mens rea. A utilitarian view of justice does not depend on mens rea, while a moral view of justice does. Mens rea usually combined with actus reus is used to produce criminal liability.
William Blackstone famously observed, “in order to have a crime, there must be a vicious will.”[1] However, in the modern regulatory state there are increasing attempts, particularly at the federal level, to create crimes that do not require proof of mens rea.
References
- ↑ William Blackstone, Commentaries 21.