Case
Latisha enters a restaurant and sets her umbrella in the corner before going to her table and eating lunch. Before leaving the restaurant, she grabs what she mistakenly thinks is her umbrella and leaves. About a block down the street, it begins to sprinkle and Latisha opens the umbrella and realizes that it is not hers. She looks at it more closely, decides it is nicer than the one she started with, and decides to keep it. Should Latisha be charged with theft and if so, based on what?
Situation
Arthur loves his 6-month-old daughter and only wants what is best for her so he drives her to the best day care each day. But one day he is preoccupied and forgets to drop her off before going to work. She is left in the car all day and dies. The prosecutor wants to charge Arthur for the homicide. Explain how the prosecutor can establish mens rea based on these facts.
Li made fireworks and was extremely careful to use the highest safety precautions, but in spite of that, one of the firecrackers malfunctioned, killing Jean. Should Li be criminally charged with Jean’s death? Why?
Considering criminal liability, it is crucial to determine the mental fault of a person. Mens rea means a particular state of mind: the absence of intention or knowledge of actions’ consequences (Molloy & Card, 2016). Actus reus is the physical element of the crime commission that refers to the omission or act of a person (Molloy & Card, 2016).
There are some levels of mens rea in the Model Penal Code, such as negligence, purpose, knowledge, and recklessness. The case of Latisha could be considered reckless behavior because she had the opportunity to return the umbrella but decided to keep it to herself. She realized that her actions are not right, and she was able to prevent further problems. Therefore, both the actus reus and mens rea are present, and Latisha could be charged with theft.
The conduct of Arthur could be seen as a case of criminal negligence because, leaving his little infant in a car, he never desired that outcome. Still, being a reasonable person, Arthur should have foreseen the results and taken precautions to avoid them. 6-month-old children fully depend on adults and can not take care of themselves. Hence, I suppose he should be subject to criminal prosecution. However, some people could think that it is hard to state Arthur’s state of responsibility because, in that way, people who walked around and did not rescue the baby could be punished as well.
The last case of Li does not involve any intention or knowledge. As presented in the task, Li considered all the precautions to prevent a possible tragedy. She had no purpose and did not do anything to harm her friend because the death resulted from a sheer accident, maybe of a sudden blast of wind. Therefore, she could not be blamed and charged with murder.
References
Molloy, J., & Card, R. (2016). Card, Cross and Jones Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.