Mens Rea and Actus Rea in Criminal Law

The article explains the concept of Mens Rea and Actus Rea in criminal law, their components, and concurrence. It also discusses the Three Strikes law and its advantages. References are included.

Running head: QUESTION 1
18
CRIMINAL LAW
STUDENT DETAILS:

QUESTION 2
The mens rea and actus rea mutually create the foundation of criminal law. They essentially
affirm that there may not be punishment without guilt. The Mens rea is unfair psychological constituent
of crime, which is referred to as the liable state of mind or culpable mind. An individual behaves
intentionally in respect of present fact if he or she is aware of the facts or particulars. The Actus rea is to
create or begin the offence; the trial should develop actus reus that includes two components such as
the voluntary action and social destruction. An individual is not culpable of the crime unless his actions
include voluntary action. The social destruction refers to the crime because social harm I codified as
being a crime. The individuals are not punished for behavior or omission, other than for omission or
behavior, which result in a social destruction (Gordon & Fondacaro, 2018).
The Mens rea is the mental element and it could be direct or indirect intention. The Actus rea is
the physical element of the crime, which means that the direct or indirect intent had been acted upon.
The Actus rea is the actual conduct which caused the crime which evolved from the mens rea, or the
intent. The Mens rea needed the trial to show that the offender had culpable state of mind before
sentencing him of the offence and acting on the intent. In this way, an offence contain of two
components like mens rea and actus reus. There should be concurrence between the Mens rea and
Actus rea. Thus, both components should happen at similar period, or at fundamentally similar time. At
the time of hearing, the prosecution should prove that the guilty mental state of defendant agreed with
criminal act. This theory is considered as contemporaneity or simultaneity (Chen, 2014).
The three-strike laws have been among the most important of a mass of get complex sentence
law enacted by various nations and state governments in current period. The version of three-strike law
of California has gained specific disrepute as one influencing by various criminals. In year 1994,
California electorates passed the law namely “Three Strikes and You are out” in relation to disastrous
murder of Polly Klass and Kimber Reynolds. The law enforced the sentence for lifetime for the offence,

QUESTION 3
no matter it is substantial or not, if the offender had two previous sentences for the offence described as
severe or vicious by California Penal Code (CPCP). Some states involve less or extra crimes that one will
not usually see as vicious. For an example, Texas does not need any three felony sentences to be vicious,
but particularly eliminates some states prison crimes from being calculated for the purpose of
improvement. It is found that anyone convicted of third severe crime shall be sentenced without
chances of parole (Creaby-Attwood & Alley, 2017). The followers of Three Strikes expected three major
advantages from accepting laws:
1. fairness would be served for crime sufferers by lastingly abolishing violent
2. Crime would be prohibited since offenders would receive 3 opportunities
3. Various offenders would leave state or change criminal action (Hetey & Eberhardt, 2014).

QUESTION 4
References
Chen, E. Y. (2014). In the furtherance of justice, injustice, or both? A multilevel analysis of courtroom
context and the implementation of three strikes. Justice quarterly, 31(2), 257-286.
Creaby-Attwood, A., & Allely, C. S. (2017). A psycho-legal perspective on sexual offending in individuals
with Autism Spectrum Disorder. International journal of law and psychiatry, 55(1), 72-80.
Gordon, N. S., & Fondacaro, M. R. (2018). Rethinking the voluntary act requirement: Implications from
neuroscience and behavioral science research. Behavioral sciences & the law, 36(4), 426-436.
Hetey, R. C., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2014). Racial disparities in incarceration increase acceptance of punitive
policies. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1949-1954.