Actus Reus And Mens Rea
Read A Statutory Approach to Criminal Law http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1539&context=faculty_publications and Chapter 4: The Elements of a Crime http://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/introduction-to-criminal-law/s08-the-elements-of-a-crime.pdf
Additionally, watch Components of a Statute https://youtu.be/do7EvPTuAfQ
Distinguish between the terms actus reus and mens rea. How are they significant in criminal law?
To what standard of law must the defendant’s mens rea be proven in order to gain a criminal conviction? Must the state prove “what the defendant was thinking at the time of the crime” in order to prove mens rea? Why or why not?
To what standard of law must each element of the actus reus be proven, and why?
Which of the two legal requirements listed above (i.e., actus reus and mens rea) is more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial, and why?
To prove each element of actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors must show that defendants committed all necessary physical acts required by law for liability purposes – even if those acts were done unknowingly or accidentally; this affects both statutory crimes as well as common law principles which hold individuals liable through causation principles regardless of intent (e.g., causation rather than intention).
Mens rea is generally more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt than actus reas because proving intention require greater proof then proving factual circumstances surrounding an incident alone – including circumstantial evidence showing motive and any form of mental state recognition from external sources like statements made by witnesses during police investigations leading up trial proceedings themselves.