'Actus Reus and Mens Rea Essay\r'

'The elements that constitue mens rea, to wit: 1. The accused knew what they were doing 2. They knew what they were doing was wrong (legally) 3. They were in sound object to choose whether or not to do it 4. They chose to do it everyway. If any of these 4 are not present, thusly mens rea is not complete, and the person can be tack not censurable (including pleading insanity).\r\nFurthermore, there is a category of offences known as â€Å"strict financial obligation offences”, for which there need not be any evidence of mens rea i.e. you can be found dishonored of commiting a crime even without knowing it. This includes offences such(prenominal) as dog fouling, breaking the highway autograph etc. Essentially, it says that ignorance of the law is no defence, you’re guilty through the actus reus alone.\r\nOn the other hand, often the adversary is true, mens rea in itself can lead to conviction i.e. if it was proven that a person was planning/intending to commit a crime, they can be convicted without actually having â€Å"done” anything. Usually, this takes the seduce of fulfilling an offence in itself e.g conspircay to commit murder. This has a with child(p) deal of importance today; if someone purchases a load of chemicals and mixes them to create explosives in their home, the law doesn’t have to wait for tem to blow something up to begin with they can be convicted of terrorism. If you’ve seen the film â€Å"Minority trace”, you’ll know the dangers of taking this to the extreme.\r\nBroadly speaking, in savage law, it must be proved beyond presumable doubt that a person pposessed the relevant mens rea and committed the actus reus on order to be convicted of a crime. However, to manage with the variety of offences, to encourage awareness of the law and to insure that the law has a moral element in its operation, then the two doctrine can affirm on their own to lead to a conviction.\r\n'