Criminal Codes and the Mental State What to Know

¶ … traditional sense. So how can possession crimes satisfy the actus reus requirement? 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 requirements for actus reus. If the mind or will is voluntarily intending to commit a crime then the mens rea supports the actus reus.

Thus, if one is possessing there is obviously and intent to use, otherwise why would someone posses? That is how possession crimes satisfy the actus resu requirement: the act of possessing indicates that there is a reason for possessing and thus an intent or a consent of the mind and will (Lehman, Phelps, 2008). 2.

What are some of the Model Penal Code's examples of non-voluntary acts? Do you think it would be difficult in most cases to prove whether a defendant acted voluntarily? Why or why not? Some model penal code examples of non-voluntary acts are having a seizure in a car and killing someone; or sleepwalking and hurting someone. These are nonvoluntary acts. It would not be difficult to prove a person acted voluntarily if they knew in advance that they were liable to have seizures and drove anyway. This is negligence. 3.

What are some examples of when the failure to act could impose criminal responsibility on a person? Do you feel as if the Government is justified in imposing affirmative obligations on its citizens and them putting them in prison for not following them? Failure to act as in when someone is robbing someone else and you know about it and do not try to alert authorities -- this is a failure to act that has criminal consequences.

The government, however, is not justified in imposing affirmative obligations: there are already far too many laws on the books as it is. There is no need for more authoritarianism. 4. Tom Tom does meet the requirement for actus reus. He knows he is an epileptic and does not have permission to drive but does so anyway. Thus he puts himself in a position to harm others, even if it is unintentional that he should have a seizure.

Yet, 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.