Criminal Law: Mens Rea and Actus Reus in Criminal Activity

CRIMINAL LAW

PART A
Mens rea and actus reus are elements of criminal activity.
Mens rea is the intent a person has behind committing a crime.
Actus reus is the action the person takes to perform the criminal act.
Joe and Cindy:
In the given case; Joe cannot be put under Mens rea1; as he hasn’t any intention to commit such
crime. He just only intends to help Cindy, when she will be in trouble; so that he can come more
close to her.
Here, as an act of Acturs reus2; Joe take an action of accidently increase the weight of Cindy.
This action was not reflex or hasn’t involved any case of self defense. But at the same time; it
also cannot be ignored that Joe haven’t any intention to kill Cindy. Therefore; he can’t be guilt
for this offence.
On the basis of overall case analyses; Section 299 which is culpable homicide is applicable in
this case. According to which; a guilty party for a murder situation cannot usually be blamed.
This gives rise to the idea of a judicial homicide in which guilt was a legitimate motivation for
doing wrong. In these cases, the person is not usually deceived by law and can also be barred
from the allegations.
These can include death caused by self-defense or inadvertently by the fact or the law was well
executed and so on. As a result, the murder can be just as valid as unlawful. Legal murder can
involve legitimate and negligent homicide. Unlawful murder can include death from a broth and
negligent act (Sec 304-A), self-destruction (Sec 309) or murder by defect3.
1 Robinson, P.H., 1993. Should the Criminal Law Abandon the Actus Reus-Mens Rea Distinction?.
2 Smith, A.T.H., 1978. On actus reus and mens rea. Reshaping the Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of Glanville
Williams (1978) at, 95.

'In fact it is enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause the passage or if information is
included that the presentation made is fatal to the extent that it may doubtless cause death or the
actual injury that can cause death and exhibit such an act without Reason.
The offense of a crime adds to the murder when the show is over with the expectation that it will
continue to deliver in the cases indicated in these guidelines will make no difference.
Accompanying demonstrations can contribute to an accused murder without enduring a murder4.
Exemptions 1-5 in section (d) and (f) 300 identify situations in which guilty murder does not
equate to homicide, these are as follows:
 It is not a crime to endure murder if it is committed by a person who is declared stupid
and causes someone to die from serious and unexpected encouragement.
 It is not the fault of a massacre endured by a murder when the guilty party passes
someone while using his privilege for the private guard of the person and property on the
basis of a certain basic honesty
 It is not an offense to endure murder if a community worker declines someone as they
perform their duties and are subject to some basic honesty and accept that their
presentations are valid.
 It is not anyone's fault to bear a murder if one makes someone refuse to send him into an
unexpected battle in the bliss of energy in a sudden square
 It is not an offense to endure murder when an individual reaches his consent when he is
over 18 years old.
The idea of an "offense caused by the death of an individual other than the person being planned"
is published in Section 301 which establishes:
3 Smith, A.T.H., 1978. On actus reus and mens rea. Reshaping the Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of Glanville
Williams (1978) at, 95.
4 Swigert, V.L. and Farrell, R.A., 1977. Normal homicides and the law. American Sociological Review, pp.16-32.

An individual commits the crime of blaming when handing over someone else while trying to
kill the other person. Here the intention of the killer or to injure anyone who does not wish to kill
or injure is considered5.
On the other hand it cannot be ignored that; if Cindy agreed to take life saver treatment; she
could be saved her life. Hence, Joe cannot be blamed for her life and not found guilty for this
offence.
Alex and Karl:
In the case of Alex and Karl; Mens rea is the intention of Alex to Karl due to envious feeling; as
Karl was his competitor. On the other hand; Actus reus is the action of Alex of putting knife
against Karl for either kill him or injured him6.
But Bella is found main suspect; as she is the main reason behind this incident as she provoked
Alex to kill Karl with Knife and also give him that element from her purse and cheer him up for
doing so. At the same time; it can also not to be ignored that; Karl was injured due to car
accident but the reason behind this is the action of Alex; and Karl in his self-defense hit by a car.
Here both Alex and Bella is the culprit behind the injury had by Karl. This case can be treated
under Section 299 (Culpable homicide) and section 300 (murder); where they both have
intention to harm Karl by giving him injury to death7.
The cause of car accident cannot safe Alex and Bella; due to the fact that they are reason behind
this accident.
5 Crosby, A.E. and Lyons, B., 2016. Assessing homicides by and of US law-enforcement officers. The New England
journal of medicine, 375(16), p.1509.
6 Swedler, D.I., Simmons, M.M., Dominici, F. and Hemenway, D., 2015. Firearm prevalence and homicides of law
enforcement officers in the United States. American journal of public health, 105(10), pp.2042-2048.
7 Uniacke, S., 1996. Permissible killing: The self-defence justification of homicide. Cambridge University Press.