|
''Mens rea'' (; Latin for "guilty mind"〔Black's Law Dictionary, p. 889 (5th ed. 1979).〕〔Barron's Law Dictionary, p. 289 (2d ed. 1984).〕) in criminal law, is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, ''actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'', which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an ''actus reus,'' or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of ''mens rea'' to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes. In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. However, if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability as well as the measure of damages payable to the plaintiff. Therefore, ''mens rea'' refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the ''actus reus''. In some jurisdictions, the terms ''mens rea'' and ''actus reus'' have been replaced by alternative terminology. In Australia, for example, the elements of the federal offenses are now designated as "fault elements" or "mental elements" (''mens rea'') and "physical elements" or "external elements" (''actus reus''). This terminology was adopted to replace the obscurity of the Latin terms with simple and accurate phrasing.〔Brent Fisse, "Howard's Criminal Law" (1990) 12-13.〕〔''(Meyers v R )'' () HCA 43. 〕 == Levels of ''mens rea'' == Under the traditional common law, the guilt or innocence of a person relied upon whether he had committed the crime (''actus reus''), and whether he intended to commit the crime (''mens rea''). However, many modern penal codes have created levels of ''mens rea'' called modes of culpability, which depend on the surrounding elements of the crime: the conduct, the circumstances, and the result, or what the Model Penal Code calls CAR (conduct, attendant circumstances, result). The definition of a crime is thus constructed using only these elements rather than the colorful language of ''mens rea'':〔Dubber p. 46〕 The traditional common law definitions and the modern definitions approach the crime from different angles. In the traditional common law approach, the definition includes: #''actus reus'': unlawful killing of a human being; #''mens rea'': malice aforethought. Modern law approaches the analysis somewhat differently. Homicide is a "results" crime in that it forbids ''any'' "intentional" or "knowing" conduct that ''results'' in the death of another human being. "Intentional" in this sense means the actor possessed a "purpose" or "desire" that his or her objective (i.e. death of another human being) be achieved. "Knowing" means that the actor was aware or practically certain that the death would result. Thus, the ''actus reus'' and ''mens rea'' of homicide in a modern criminal statute can be considered as follows: #''actus reus'': any conduct resulting in the death of another individual; #''mens rea'': intent or knowledge that the conduct would result in the death. In the modern approach, the attendant circumstances tend to replace the traditional ''mens rea'', indicating the level of culpability as well as other circumstances. For example, the crime of ''theft of government property'' would include as an attendant circumstance that the property belong to the government.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「mens rea」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|