Introduction
In order for an individual to be held criminally liable, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the Actus Reus of the offense. It means that their actions were voluntary and intentional, or at least reckless in nature. If someone intentionally punches another person in the face, causing injury, they have committed both the Actus Reus and Mens Rea.
The Actus Reus, or the Action that Caused Harm
In the formal scenario, the actus reus, or action that caused harm, is the young woman’s stabbing of the man. Stabbing is a physical action that damages the man (“Actus reus versus justificatory defenses”, 2023). However, it is essential to note that this act alone does not provide a complete understanding of the situation. The young woman’s profound shock and silence indicate that underlying factors might contribute to her behavior.
Mens Rea, or the Intent of the Person who Caused the Harm
Mens rea is the mental state or intention of a person who commits a harmful act. The first degree is negligence, which occurs when the injury is inadvertently inflicted by carelessness or a failure to exercise reasonable caution. The conclusion is made based on information that if there is proof that the young woman stabbed the man by mistake without any intent or knowledge, her mens rea falls under carelessness.
Concurrence
Concurrence refers to the occurrence of actus reus (the criminal deed) and mens rea (the guilty mentality) at the same time. Both aspects occurred together since the young lady stabbing the man represents the actus reus, which plainly displays a deliberate action inflicting injury (The Crown Prosecution Service, 2019). Men’s rea, on the other hand, can be deduced from her extreme astonishment and stillness following the deed (Blocher & Vaseghi, 2020). Her behavior shows that she was acting with some goal or awareness. However, without understanding or recognizing signs of PTSD, the detective might not have pursued a line of questioning that would lead to uncovering past abuse. In this case, the young woman’s silence and shock are indicative of her experiencing severe psychological distress due to past abuse.
Excusable or Justifiable Defense
In the instance of the young lady who stabbed a man, it is critical to investigate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a possible defense. The young woman’s great shock, along with her silence, suggests that she may have PTSD. If the investigator cannot identify symptoms of this disease, they may ignore an essential line of questioning (“Actus reus versus justificatory defenses”, 2023). Self-defense is the excusable or justifiable defense that could be applied in this case. If it can be proven that the man had abused her when she was younger and posed an immediate threat at the time of the stabbing incident, then her actions can be seen as necessary for self-preservation. Such a conclusion is made on the basis of the belief that acknowledging PTSD is a valid defense in cases like these (NCSL, 2022). One can ensure justice is served while also providing support for those who have suffered from abuse or trauma.
Conclusion
Overall, understanding and establishing the Actus Reus is critical in criminal law because it serves as the foundation for evaluating whether a person may be held criminally accountable for their acts. Demonstrating that the defendant’s actions harmed another individual or society is necessary. The Actus Reus must be proven to show guilt and identify suitable legal penalties, whether the act is purposeful, reckless, negligent, or even an omission.
References
“Actus reus versus justificatory defenses”. (2023). Law. Web.
Blocher, J., & Vaseghi, B. (2020). True threats, self-defense, and the Second Amendment. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 48(S4), 112–118. Web.
The Crown Prosecution Service. (2019). Self-defence and the prevention of crime. Web.
NCSL. (2022). Self-defense and “stand your ground”. Web.
Loading...
