Mens rea : Criminal intent

Mens rea (from Latin, "bad mind") is the mental state that, in combination with the actus reus ("bad act"), produces criminal liability. According to Western jurisprudence, there must be a concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea for a crime to have been committed. As it is impossible to know what a defendant actually thought at the time of his criminal act, mens rea is often inferred from the circumstances. Mens rea isn't the same thing as motive[?]. Crimes of strict liability, such as traffic offenses, involve the mens rea of strict liability, which doesn't require any criminal intent (see Common Law below).

The Model Penal Code[?], a publication of the American Law Institute, defines mens rea in particularly clear terms and has been adopted by much of the United States:

• Purpose: the actor's conscious object is to commit the proscribed act.
• Knowledge: the actor knows that the proscribed act will certainly occur as a result of his actions.
• Recklessness: the actor is aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the proscribed act will occur as a result of his actions.
• Negligence: the actor reasonably should know that the proscribed act will occur as a result of his actions.

Contrast these four categories with the Common Law mens rea definitions:

• Specific Intent: the actor intends to commit the proscribed act. E.g. premeditated murder. Roughly equivalent to the Purpose and Knowledge standards of the Model Penal Code.
• General Intent: the actor intends a bad act, but not necessarily the act that is subsequently committed. Roughly equivalent to the Recklessness and Negligence standards of the Model Penal Code.
• Strict Liability: the actor has no intent to commit any offense but is held liable nonetheless. (The Model Penal Code doesn't recognize strict liability as a mens rea for which imprisonment is appropriate.)

A concept that is somewhat misleading for its over-simplification is so-called presumed knowledge of the law. A more appropriate saying is that generally, ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. No one is "presumed" to know the law; the reality is that knowledge of the particular statute prohibiting certain conduct isn't usually an element of the crime created by that statute, and therefore knowledge of the law isn't required for punishment.

Examples of mens rea in statutes

Model Penal Code: A person commits murder if he (1) purposely or knowingly (2) causes the death of a human being.

Common Law: (a) It shall be unlawful for a person to cause the death of a human being with malice aforethought. (b) A violation of this section is murder in the second degree.

See also: actus reus, manslaughter, animus nocendi, voluntas necandi[?]

See generally: Criminal law

Common misspelling and questions (FAQ)

riminal-intent  ciminal-intent  crminal-intent  criinal-intent  crimnal-intent  crimial-intent  criminl-intent  crimina-intent  criminalintent  criminal-ntent  criminal-itent  criminal-inent  criminal-intnt  criminal-intet  criminal-inten  rciminal-intent  cirminal-intent  crmiinal-intent  criimnal-intent  crimnial-intent  crimianl-intent  criminla-intent  crimina-lintent  criminali-ntent  criminal-nitent  criminal-itnent  criminal-inetnt  criminal-intnet  criminal-intetn  criminal-inten  ccriminal-intent  crriminal-intent  criiminal-intent  crimminal-intent  crimiinal-intent  criminnal-intent  criminaal-intent  criminall-intent  criminal--intent  criminal-iintent  criminal-inntent  criminal-inttent  criminal-inteent  criminal-intennt  criminal-intentt  driminal-intent  xriminal-intent  friminal-intent  friminal-intent  vriminal-intent  c4iminal-intent  ceiminal-intent  cdiminal-intent  c5iminal-intent  cfiminal-intent  c5iminal-intent  ctiminal-intent  cfiminal-intent  cr8minal-intent  cruminal-intent  crjminal-intent  cr9minal-intent  crkminal-intent  cr9minal-intent  crominal-intent  crkminal-intent  crijinal-intent  crininal-intent  crikinal-intent  crikinal-intent  cri,inal-intent  crim8nal-intent  crimunal-intent  crimjnal-intent  crim9nal-intent  crimknal-intent  crim9nal-intent  crimonal-intent  crimknal-intent  crimihal-intent  crimibal-intent  crimijal-intent  crimijal-intent  crimimal-intent  criminql-intent  criminwl-intent  criminzl-intent  criminwl-intent  criminsl-intent  criminzl-intent  criminao-intent  criminak-intent  crimina,-intent  criminap-intent  crimina.-intent  criminap-intent  crimina;-intent  crimina.-intent  criminal0intent  criminalpintent  criminal[intent  criminal-8ntent  criminal-untent  criminal-jntent  criminal-9ntent  criminal-kntent  criminal-9ntent  criminal-ontent  criminal-kntent  criminal-ihtent  criminal-ibtent  criminal-ijtent  criminal-ijtent  criminal-imtent  criminal-in5ent  criminal-inrent  criminal-infent  criminal-in6ent  criminal-ingent  criminal-in6ent  criminal-inyent  criminal-ingent  criminal-int3nt  criminal-intwnt  criminal-intsnt  criminal-int4nt  criminal-intdnt  criminal-int4nt  criminal-intrnt  criminal-intdnt  criminal-inteht  criminal-intebt  criminal-intejt  criminal-intejt  criminal-intemt  criminal-inten5  criminal-intenr  criminal-intenf  criminal-inten6  criminal-inteng  criminal-inten6  criminal-inteny  criminal-inteng  cryminal-intent  criminal-inyent  criminal-intyent  criminal-intents 


Annal. ii. 41. Forum, near the temple of Concord; but there are no remains of it. [484] Tacitus informs us that the same application had been made by important as his office had now become, was not allowed to enter.