he explains the criminal law perfect. goes into depth so its easy to understand. as said in the video.. say a man is showing you a new fighting move and accidently hits you in the face.. you didnt want him to show you but he did, is it considered a crime because he hit you? or was it an accident? should he punished as if it was a crime because he hurt you? thats where actus reus comes into play. its hard telling if it was intentional or an accident. strict liabily, is a good way to show defenses.. as he says were you driving 85 mph in a 55? and what is your defense?
in response to that is I would have to own up to the accusation set upon me and deal with the consequences and live on. Now if I had car troubles that would led me to driving at that range of speed then I would still have to own up to it. its my vehicle and I have to deal with the consequences. I would have the actus rea to go 85mph in a 55mph but I may not have the mens rea to do such a crime.
I agree but when someone does shows you a fighting move that you do not want to see, that person can actually be charged with assault since he knew what he was doing even if it was an accident. He has the knowledge that he could miss or hurt you in some kind of way and that is mens rea and obviously doing it is actus reus. HRT123
right i agree, when you do anything in life, you have to deal with the outcome, it could be a good outcome it could be a bad outcome. its your consequences and your actions that cause it.
I agree with wrestler123 when it comes to the scenario of speeding, that you have the body of the crime of speeding, but that person did not have the mens rea of intentionally hurting anybody if that were to occur. But of course it may be a totally different story if this person was speeding and accidentally hitting an innocent bystander. BadWolf123
I agree with snakebite123. He did a very good job of explaining and went into depth but made it very easy to understand at the same time. As far as your examples, if someone hits you in the face when you said you didn't want them to it is a crime. As someone who has been in a situation similar to the speeding, you really don't have an excuse. You tell the officer the truth as to why you were doing it and hope he lets you off easy. You are guilty of committing a crime and there is no arguing that. vhammer123
the speaker does a good job explaining the criminal law in a easy seven step way and he does hit the main points one by one instead of rushing through to get to the next. i do have agree with the relationship with actus and mens rea. A baseball player could intend to hit someone in the face intentionally with a bat and have the mens rea mind set but other situations the player could of just been warming up and accidently hitting another teammate, like the speaker was telling about. yet at the same time that player could of done it by accident but then realized that he/she hit the teammate she doesn't like or get along with and had actually enjoyed hitting the person even by accident, i know it would be actus rea but would also be mens rea in the same sense?
him breaking it down in to 7 different step helped me understand it. I liked how u used the baseball player as a way to help us understand better. Nolove123
The 7 step explanation he went through was very easy to follow. There must be mens rea and actus reus to be guilty of a crime. He says that in order for something to be wrong both of these things, well actually all 7, but mostly the first two must coincide with one another. He points out the batter hitting someone with the bat. Yes there was the evil act or actus reus, but he didnt mean to hit the guy and didnt even know he was there so the mens rea was not present so he hes not guilty of a crime because it was an accident. He also points out that there has to be a law in place in order for it to be a crime, so there is no conviction of something that happens because there is no law saying it is wrong. I like what he said about strict liability. The example was the person speeding and saying his defense was his speedometer was broken. Well whos fault is it that your speedometer is broken? Its your car and if you know its broken then its your responsibility to fix it, and it doesnt change the fact that you are speeding. You are still guilty of going over the speed limit. You have to take responsibility for your actions. All in all I thought this was an informative video and helps explain everything barney style and he keeps it simple so everyone can understand.USA123
He was basically saying how mens rea and actus reus work. Both have to be present in criminal law in order to prosecute someone. He showed an example of someone in the batter’s box swinging a baseball bat warming up to hit. Well somebody walked behind him and got hit in the head. Actus reus was there but there was no mens rea because he didn't mean to do it. He then points out how strict liability takes out mens rea. His example was someone was driving doing 85 mph in a 50 mph and their speedometer was broken. They still get the ticket because you don't have to prove that they knew that were doing the wrong. I think that is not always the case because if the police officer actually cares he wouldn't give that person a ticket. But yes that person could easily get a ticket with no doubt. HRT123
I agree, the speaker broke this down very well and I now have an even better understanding of mens rea and actus reus. I do have to disagree with you about how if a police officer cared he wouldn't give someone a ticket for going 85 in a 50. Going 85 in a 50 is a little extreme and very dangerous for the driver and others on the road. I also think if someone was going 35 mph over the speed limit he would notice that he was going faster than everyone else and realize he was speeding so even if he didn't know exactly how fast he was going he knew he was speeding. Fruitloop123
In the case of going 85 in a 50 and having a broken speedometer. Yes his speedometer is broken, but whos problem is that? why should the officer let him off because at the end of the day he is still speeding and doing 35 over the speed limit. He is still putting everyone else on the road in danger. I know if my speedometer is broken im sure i would know before i got stopped by the police. Its your vehicle so you are responsible for fixing your speedometer and dont expect to be given a break just because its broken.USA123
The speaker put everything out there very simply. His examples were straight forward and made it easy to understand the differences between mens rea and acts rea and how they are applied in criminal law. Explaining strict liability to wrap it up was fantastic, that really brought the concept of mens rea full circle. Check123
I also agree. Had he just given textbook definitions of the elements without giving examples, I really don’t think a person could truly learn this subject and fully comprehend everything. I really wish he would have provided some examples to the legal defenses to crimes though. While the examples discussed in class were enough to get the hang of it, a few more examples never hurt anyone. ISP123
I agree examples help out a lot with definitions. I feel like I can visually picture the incident in my head and I cant forget it and some of it is common sense such as harm and punishment. Scorpio 123.
I agree I feel like the speaker did a good job. He included details and used examples to explain the criminal law with a good understanding. I like some of the examples he used to make it more exciting but he did a great job. T123
I agree with ISP if he wouldve just giving the book definitions i would probably still be lost on how theses elements work. Good thing he broke it down and gave us better definitions and examples Secret'A'123
I really like how this video breaks down crime into seven elements that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If one element is missing, then it’s not considered that a crime has been commited. The seven elements are mens rea/ guilty mind, actus reas/criminal act, concurrence, harm, causation, legality, and punishment. Mens rea is the term that labels the criminal to have a guilty mind to commit a crime, actus reas is the term for the body of the crime. Concurrence is the term that mens rea and actus reas have to act together. Harm is obviously the physical/mental abuse that the criminal puts on their victim. Causation means that harm has to be caused by the crime. Legality means that the crime has to have been illegal in order to receive punishment. Finally, punishment is the result of committing the crime. He also explains the most important defenses against crime, they consist of duress, insanity, necessity, and self-defense. BadWolf123
I really enjoyed watching this video considering it explaining the 7 elements of crime that must be proved beyond the reasonable doubt. I agree on the fact that it said if one of the elements is missing oe something doesnt fit in with its right category then its not a crime and nobody should be charged. In other words if the puishment doesnt fit the crime then its not and noone shall be convicted. Also liked how he explained the relationship between Actus and Mens Rea and how concurrence makes up both of them, saying "Actus and Mens Rea must act as one. Also explaing the important defense for crime". Hoopz123
I really liked this video because it broke down the seven elements of a crime. By breaking it down into the seven necessary qualifications, it is easier for me to understand whether something is a crime or not. This video was extremely helpful especially in defining actus reus and mens rea and the relationship between the two. I felt like this helped me understand and actually grasp the concepts of the two so much better than I did before because I was confused. Mens rea is the conscience of committing the crime and the intent to do something. Actus reus, however, is a person physically committing the crime. Without one, you cannot have the other. Someone can think of a crime but not follow through or they can actually commit the crime without that intent. This automatically eliminates the classification of a crime. I feel more comfortable about these concepts and I'll probably come back to this video for refreshers on defining a crime. rogir123
I really enjoyed this video and any questions I had about mens rea and actus reus were answered. I really liked how the speaker broke down criminal law into 7 elements;mens rea, actus reus, concurrence, harm, causation, legality, and punishment. This gave me an even better understanding of how and why crime happens and how all the elements go together. He gave a lot of good examples, such has not intentionally hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat because you were on deck and did not see them standing next to you. This is a good example of not having mens rea because you did not INTENTIONALLY hit them. Actus reus is there thought because even if you did not mean to you still hit the person in the head which caused them harm, two other elements of crime. This was a good breakdown of crime and helped me understand actus reus and mens rea a little bit better. Fruitloop123
I really liked watching this video. I thought that the part where he broke down what constitutes a crime as very interesting. I agree that if not all of the seven elements are present that it can not be considered a crime. I also liked how he explained Mens Rea and Actus Reas and how both of those must be present in order for someone to be charged. Also explaining that concurrence is simply a combination of how these things, or in other words if someone does something by accident there is no crime because there was no Mens Rea. I also liked how he went through the most common defense arguments. He did a great job in explaining everything that he talked about. He was very straight forward and all of his examples were very easy to follow and did a good job of helping to explain each part. vhammer123
Right off of the back i thought that the speaker did a great job breaking down the 7 levels of crime. He made it really easy to understand the mens rea and the acts rea and how they work in the criminal law. He's basically saying that they both have to be presented in criminal law to prosecute someone. Like if some one is showing u something or helping u with something and u didn't really want the help or really didn't want to be shown and end up getting hurt. But the person who was trying to help didn't mean to hurt u but they did. Should they be punished for or was it just a miss understanding . Just small things like that is were the acts rea would come in to play. But over all the speaker broke it down very well . Nolove123
This was a very informative video. The most educational part for me was all of the examples for each element. Anyone can give the definition of these elements but having an example put in front of you really puts it into perspective. The seven elements of a crime, all of which must be proven without a reasonable doubt, are actus reas, mens rea, concurrence of both actus reas and mens rea, harm, causation, legality, and punishment. A couple of these elements got me thinking. First of which was harm. I was trying to think of an example of an offense that didn’t cause harm and everything I thought of ended up being a strict liability crime. Can anyone provide a valid example? The legality element, after the gentleman explained it, seemed to pretty much be about ex post facto. Lastly, the gentleman in the video briefly discussed valid and legal defenses to offenses. He listed them off however, he did not provide examples. They were duress, necessity, self-defense, and insanity. Since he didn’t provide examples, I decided to give the examples discussed in class. An example of the duress defense would be if someone kidnapped your wife, held a gun to her head, and told you that he would kill her if you did not go inside the bank and rob it. The necessity defense example discussed in class was about the person who drove drunk to escape being a victim to a crime. ISP123
I agree with you that the most educational party of this article was the examples for each point he made about the elements of a crime. Not all offenses cause harm, for example stealing from a store yo dont have to kill or hurt people to steal all the time. Forging a signature isnt a physical harm being done but probably emotionally. Love456
Now it is clear to me there crime has 7 elements such as mens rea the evil mind, actus rea evil act, concurrence trying to commit a crime that is not as bad as murder but end up killing someone on "accident", harm some form of harming ex. pinching, causation by the act of the perpetrator, legality legal when you do it illegal when you are prosecuted, and punishment in order for it to be considered a crime there has to be a punishment. I enjoyed this video and everything he said I feel like I learned a lot, I learned more about defenses what 4 reasons people can use to get out of a cause. The boy that threw the rock at the window and ended up killing the old man was a great example because it is really popular and you hear of accidents happening like this all over the U.S. Also the term duress when the defendant is threatened with serious bodily harm, which included him/her to commit a crime. Scorpio 123.
I found how the guy explained the seven elements of a crime were very interesting and he made lots of sense. I agree if the mens rea and actus rea doesn't line up then i think you should go with the mens rea, what was the persons intentions when doing what they did. Thew four defenses, duress, necessity, self defense, and insanity; are very liable and accurate. The story he gave about Lil johnny and the old grumpy grandpa. Obviously the little boy intentions weren't to kill the grandfather but only to vandalize his home and window. In that case you wouldn’t just arrest the boy and throw him in jail, because that wasn’t his mens rea to kill the man. Some type of treatment or help would be needed for the lil boy so he would know and understand it’s not ok to throw rocks or vandalize anybody’s property. Love456
I like the speaker and how he explained the criminal laws in steps. I like how he included details and use examples for a better understanding with the mens rea and the actus rea. I actually did get a better understanding of the 7 criminal laws watching this video. Also with the defenses and how the little boy accidently killed the man with the rock. Kids always playing and things always happening he wasn't trying to kill the old man but he accidently did playing around but that's what kids do I feel like. T123
This video helped me understand the criminal laws. I like how he explained it and then gave examples of it.Now I have a better understanding of the 7 laws. Secret'A'123
This video is really informative and I was searching this type of video to learn and study about criminal law.
ReplyDeleteJenny Adelman
he explains the criminal law perfect. goes into depth so its easy to understand. as said in the video.. say a man is showing you a new fighting move and accidently hits you in the face.. you didnt want him to show you but he did, is it considered a crime because he hit you? or was it an accident? should he punished as if it was a crime because he hurt you? thats where actus reus comes into play. its hard telling if it was intentional or an accident. strict liabily, is a good way to show defenses.. as he says were you driving 85 mph in a 55? and what is your defense?
ReplyDeletesnakebite123
in response to that is I would have to own up to the accusation set upon me and deal with the consequences and live on. Now if I had car troubles that would led me to driving at that range of speed then I would still have to own up to it. its my vehicle and I have to deal with the consequences. I would have the actus rea to go 85mph in a 55mph but I may not have the mens rea to do such a crime.
Deletewrestler123
I agree but when someone does shows you a fighting move that you do not want to see, that person can actually be charged with assault since he knew what he was doing even if it was an accident. He has the knowledge that he could miss or hurt you in some kind of way and that is mens rea and obviously doing it is actus reus. HRT123
Deleteright i agree, when you do anything in life, you have to deal with the outcome, it could be a good outcome it could be a bad outcome. its your consequences and your actions that cause it.
Deletesnakebite123
I agree with wrestler123 when it comes to the scenario of speeding, that you have the body of the crime of speeding, but that person did not have the mens rea of intentionally hurting anybody if that were to occur. But of course it may be a totally different story if this person was speeding and accidentally hitting an innocent bystander. BadWolf123
DeleteI agree with snakebite123. He did a very good job of explaining and went into depth but made it very easy to understand at the same time. As far as your examples, if someone hits you in the face when you said you didn't want them to it is a crime. As someone who has been in a situation similar to the speeding, you really don't have an excuse. You tell the officer the truth as to why you were doing it and hope he lets you off easy. You are guilty of committing a crime and there is no arguing that. vhammer123
Deletethe speaker does a good job explaining the criminal law in a easy seven step way and he does hit the main points one by one instead of rushing through to get to the next. i do have agree with the relationship with actus and mens rea. A baseball player could intend to hit someone in the face intentionally with a bat and have the mens rea mind set but other situations the player could of just been warming up and accidently hitting another teammate, like the speaker was telling about. yet at the same time that player could of done it by accident but then realized that he/she hit the teammate she doesn't like or get along with and had actually enjoyed hitting the person even by accident, i know it would be actus rea but would also be mens rea in the same sense?
ReplyDeletewrestler123
him breaking it down in to 7 different step helped me understand it. I liked how u used the baseball player as a way to help us understand better.
DeleteNolove123
The 7 step explanation he went through was very easy to follow. There must be mens rea and actus reus to be guilty of a crime. He says that in order for something to be wrong both of these things, well actually all 7, but mostly the first two must coincide with one another. He points out the batter hitting someone with the bat. Yes there was the evil act or actus reus, but he didnt mean to hit the guy and didnt even know he was there so the mens rea was not present so he hes not guilty of a crime because it was an accident. He also points out that there has to be a law in place in order for it to be a crime, so there is no conviction of something that happens because there is no law saying it is wrong. I like what he said about strict liability. The example was the person speeding and saying his defense was his speedometer was broken. Well whos fault is it that your speedometer is broken? Its your car and if you know its broken then its your responsibility to fix it, and it doesnt change the fact that you are speeding. You are still guilty of going over the speed limit. You have to take responsibility for your actions. All in all I thought this was an informative video and helps explain everything barney style and he keeps it simple so everyone can understand.USA123
ReplyDeleteHe was basically saying how mens rea and actus reus work. Both have to be present in criminal law in order to prosecute someone. He showed an example of someone in the batter’s box swinging a baseball bat warming up to hit. Well somebody walked behind him and got hit in the head. Actus reus was there but there was no mens rea because he didn't mean to do it. He then points out how strict liability takes out mens rea. His example was someone was driving doing 85 mph in a 50 mph and their speedometer was broken. They still get the ticket because you don't have to prove that they knew that were doing the wrong. I think that is not always the case because if the police officer actually cares he wouldn't give that person a ticket. But yes that person could easily get a ticket with no doubt. HRT123
ReplyDeleteI agree, the speaker broke this down very well and I now have an even better understanding of mens rea and actus reus. I do have to disagree with you about how if a police officer cared he wouldn't give someone a ticket for going 85 in a 50. Going 85 in a 50 is a little extreme and very dangerous for the driver and others on the road. I also think if someone was going 35 mph over the speed limit he would notice that he was going faster than everyone else and realize he was speeding so even if he didn't know exactly how fast he was going he knew he was speeding.
DeleteFruitloop123
In the case of going 85 in a 50 and having a broken speedometer. Yes his speedometer is broken, but whos problem is that? why should the officer let him off because at the end of the day he is still speeding and doing 35 over the speed limit. He is still putting everyone else on the road in danger. I know if my speedometer is broken im sure i would know before i got stopped by the police. Its your vehicle so you are responsible for fixing your speedometer and dont expect to be given a break just because its broken.USA123
DeleteThe speaker put everything out there very simply. His examples were straight forward and made it easy to understand the differences between mens rea and acts rea and how they are applied in criminal law. Explaining strict liability to wrap it up was fantastic, that really brought the concept of mens rea full circle.
ReplyDeleteCheck123
I agree how he first explained everything step by step and then summarized it all together, everything was in order. Hoopz123
DeleteThe speaker did a great job explaining it step by step and then summarzing it up, it was in order as well. Hoopz123
DeleteI agree that he did a great job defining these for us. I feel more rounded on these concepts now.
Deleterogir123
I also agree. Had he just given textbook definitions of the elements without giving examples, I really don’t think a person could truly learn this subject and fully comprehend everything. I really wish he would have provided some examples to the legal defenses to crimes though. While the examples discussed in class were enough to get the hang of it, a few more examples never hurt anyone.
DeleteISP123
I agree examples help out a lot with definitions. I feel like I can visually picture the incident in my head and I cant forget it and some of it is common sense such as harm and punishment. Scorpio 123.
DeleteI agree I feel like the speaker did a good job. He included details and used examples to explain the criminal law with a good understanding. I like some of the examples he used to make it more exciting but he did a great job. T123
DeleteI agree with ISP if he wouldve just giving the book definitions i would probably still be lost on how theses elements work. Good thing he broke it down and gave us better definitions and examples Secret'A'123
DeleteI really like how this video breaks down crime into seven elements that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If one element is missing, then it’s not considered that a crime has been commited. The seven elements are mens rea/ guilty mind, actus reas/criminal act, concurrence, harm, causation, legality, and punishment. Mens rea is the term that labels the criminal to have a guilty mind to commit a crime, actus reas is the term for the body of the crime. Concurrence is the term that mens rea and actus reas have to act together. Harm is obviously the physical/mental abuse that the criminal puts on their victim. Causation means that harm has to be caused by the crime. Legality means that the crime has to have been illegal in order to receive punishment. Finally, punishment is the result of committing the crime. He also explains the most important defenses against crime, they consist of duress, insanity, necessity, and self-defense. BadWolf123
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed watching this video considering it explaining the 7 elements of crime that must be proved beyond the reasonable doubt. I agree on the fact that it said if one of the elements is missing oe something doesnt fit in with its right category then its not a crime and nobody should be charged. In other words if the puishment doesnt fit the crime then its not and noone shall be convicted. Also liked how he explained the relationship between Actus and Mens Rea and how concurrence makes up both of them, saying "Actus and Mens Rea must act as one. Also explaing the important defense for crime". Hoopz123
ReplyDeleteI really liked this video because it broke down the seven elements of a crime. By breaking it down into the seven necessary qualifications, it is easier for me to understand whether something is a crime or not. This video was extremely helpful especially in defining actus reus and mens rea and the relationship between the two. I felt like this helped me understand and actually grasp the concepts of the two so much better than I did before because I was confused. Mens rea is the conscience of committing the crime and the intent to do something. Actus reus, however, is a person physically committing the crime. Without one, you cannot have the other. Someone can think of a crime but not follow through or they can actually commit the crime without that intent. This automatically eliminates the classification of a crime. I feel more comfortable about these concepts and I'll probably come back to this video for refreshers on defining a crime.
ReplyDeleterogir123
I really enjoyed this video and any questions I had about mens rea and actus reus were answered. I really liked how the speaker broke down criminal law into 7 elements;mens rea, actus reus, concurrence, harm, causation, legality, and punishment. This gave me an even better understanding of how and why crime happens and how all the elements go together. He gave a lot of good examples, such has not intentionally hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat because you were on deck and did not see them standing next to you. This is a good example of not having mens rea because you did not INTENTIONALLY hit them. Actus reus is there thought because even if you did not mean to you still hit the person in the head which caused them harm, two other elements of crime. This was a good breakdown of crime and helped me understand actus reus and mens rea a little bit better.
ReplyDeleteFruitloop123
I really liked watching this video. I thought that the part where he broke down what constitutes a crime as very interesting. I agree that if not all of the seven elements are present that it can not be considered a crime. I also liked how he explained Mens Rea and Actus Reas and how both of those must be present in order for someone to be charged. Also explaining that concurrence is simply a combination of how these things, or in other words if someone does something by accident there is no crime because there was no Mens Rea. I also liked how he went through the most common defense arguments. He did a great job in explaining everything that he talked about. He was very straight forward and all of his examples were very easy to follow and did a good job of helping to explain each part. vhammer123
ReplyDeleteRight off of the back i thought that the speaker did a great job breaking down the 7 levels of crime. He made it really easy to understand the mens rea and the acts rea and how they work in the criminal law. He's basically saying that they both have to be presented in criminal law to prosecute someone. Like if some one is showing u something or helping u with something and u didn't really want the help or really didn't want to be shown and end up getting hurt. But the person who was trying to help didn't mean to hurt u but they did. Should they be punished for or was it just a miss understanding . Just small things like that is were the acts rea would come in to play. But over all the speaker broke it down very well .
ReplyDeleteNolove123
This was a very informative video. The most educational part for me was all of the examples for each element. Anyone can give the definition of these elements but having an example put in front of you really puts it into perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe seven elements of a crime, all of which must be proven without a reasonable doubt, are actus reas, mens rea, concurrence of both actus reas and mens rea, harm, causation, legality, and punishment. A couple of these elements got me thinking. First of which was harm. I was trying to think of an example of an offense that didn’t cause harm and everything I thought of ended up being a strict liability crime. Can anyone provide a valid example?
The legality element, after the gentleman explained it, seemed to pretty much be about ex post facto.
Lastly, the gentleman in the video briefly discussed valid and legal defenses to offenses. He listed them off however, he did not provide examples. They were duress, necessity, self-defense, and insanity. Since he didn’t provide examples, I decided to give the examples discussed in class. An example of the duress defense would be if someone kidnapped your wife, held a gun to her head, and told you that he would kill her if you did not go inside the bank and rob it. The necessity defense example discussed in class was about the person who drove drunk to escape being a victim to a crime.
ISP123
I agree with you that the most educational party of this article was the examples for each point he made about the elements of a crime. Not all offenses cause harm, for example stealing from a store yo dont have to kill or hurt people to steal all the time. Forging a signature isnt a physical harm being done but probably emotionally. Love456
DeleteNow it is clear to me there crime has 7 elements such as mens rea the evil mind, actus rea evil act, concurrence trying to commit a crime that is not as bad as murder but end up killing someone on "accident", harm some form of harming ex. pinching, causation by the act of the perpetrator, legality legal when you do it illegal when you are prosecuted, and punishment in order for it to be considered a crime there has to be a punishment. I enjoyed this video and everything he said I feel like I learned a lot, I learned more about defenses what 4 reasons people can use to get out of a cause. The boy that threw the rock at the window and ended up killing the old man was a great example because it is really popular and you hear of accidents happening like this all over the U.S. Also the term duress when the defendant is threatened with serious bodily harm, which included him/her to commit a crime. Scorpio 123.
ReplyDeleteI found how the guy explained the seven elements of a crime were very interesting and he made lots of sense. I agree if the mens rea and actus rea doesn't line up then i think you should go with the mens rea, what was the persons intentions when doing what they did. Thew four defenses, duress, necessity, self defense, and insanity; are very liable and accurate. The story he gave about Lil johnny and the old grumpy grandpa. Obviously the little boy intentions weren't to kill the grandfather but only to vandalize his home and window. In that case you wouldn’t just arrest the boy and throw him in jail, because that wasn’t his mens rea to kill the man. Some type of treatment or help would be needed for the lil boy so he would know and understand it’s not ok to throw rocks or vandalize anybody’s property. Love456
ReplyDeleteI like the speaker and how he explained the criminal laws in steps. I like how he included details and use examples for a better understanding with the mens rea and the actus rea. I actually did get a better understanding of the 7 criminal laws watching this video. Also with the defenses and how the little boy accidently killed the man with the rock. Kids always playing and things always happening he wasn't trying to kill the old man but he accidently did playing around but that's what kids do I feel like. T123
ReplyDeleteThis video helped me understand the criminal laws. I like how he explained it and then gave examples of it.Now I have a better understanding of the 7 laws. Secret'A'123
ReplyDelete