Distinguish between the terms actus reus and mens rea. How are they significant in criminal law?
Actus Reus and Mens Rea
CRJ 306- DISCUSSION.
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?
Your initial post must be at least 400 words in length. Support your responses with
credible sourcing.
Answer Preview……………
The existence of legal standards actus reus and mens rea ensures that one is only convicted of that which he or she purposely engaged in based on the irrefutable evidence presented before court. Particularly, actus reus includes the activity involved that could be observed as being a criminal act. It would be based on evidence related to the physical action that the prosecution could build a case against the suspect, based on the existing slaws that define the parameters of punishment for such activities (Simons, 2002). On the other hand, mens rea primarily involves the psychological aspects of a crime, which cannot be explicitly determined by a court but could be proven using arguments presented by the prosecution, with the possibility………………..
APA 472 words