Are Epileptics Who Drive Protected From Actus Reus

Actus Reus Does Tom meet the actus reus requirement to be prosecuted for the deaths? Yes, Tom meets the actus reus requirement, because he knows he is an epileptic and willingly operated a vehicle without medical authorization: thus, he willfully placed himself and others in a potentially dangerous situation.

Though he did not will the seizure at that moment, he knew that there was always a possibility that he might have an epileptic fit any time, so he meets the actus reus requirement by choosing to get behind the wheel in the first place. In fact a similar case happened in 1955, when a driver suffering from a seizure killed four individuals on the road.

The driver was convicted and lost the appeal on the grounds that he knew of his condition prior to operating the vehicle and thus was responsible for what happened as a result. The court ruled that to exonerate the defendant would be similar to exonerating any drunk driver whose defense was that he did not willfully cause harm on the road -- that it was only an effect of the alcohol. Drinking and driving, the court suggested, was the same as being an epileptic and driving.

In Tom's case, the question is: why does he have a driver's license at all? If he is not legally prohibited from driving by the State, then there may be some defense for Tom, suggesting that it appeared to the State that his epilepsy was under control and therefore not a threat. However, if he was not legally permitted to drive, there is no defense for time. His defense would have to ascertain whether Tom violated State law by driving without medical authorization.

Because laws vary from State to State, there could be some grounds for a defense in this case, seeing as he had not had a seizure in several months and had a good driving record (Leppik, 2006). Regardless, the prosecutor would have to argue that Tom meets the actus reus requirement and base this argument on the case of People v. Decina (1956).

2) What is the definition of actus reus, and why do you believe it is such an important concept in criminal law? (Points: 20 Actus reus is defined as any criminal action that came about as the result of a voluntary/willful action by the body in question. For example, someone who is sleepwalking cannot commit an actus reus because he is not voluntarily moving. However, a person who voluntarily robs a bank is committing an actus reus.

This is an important concept in criminal law because it identifies the need for there to be voluntary action on the part of the actor. For example, if one were forced to rob a bank against his will, such an individual could not in justice be charged with a crime since he did not voluntarily commit the action. Essentially, actus reus is about establishing justice with regards to the will and mind of the individual.

The concept can be distorted if one gets into the argument about subjective and objective intent; however, by keeping the argument on a simple cause and effect level of understanding it can be simple to see whether the actor meets the.