I can say that this subject sounded familiar but It wasn't something that I knew much about. I had no clue that the crown attorney has to prove someone of Actus Reus and Mens Rea to prove them guilty. All together this video was very educational because It showed me something that I knew very little about. In my personal opinion I feel that some law enforcement people oversee things like Mens Rea because I feel like if someone does have to intention of doing something wrong that there is a good percent chance that, that person will do that wrong. Then like the man said in the video there is also a different side of it such as if someone has a gun or knife it doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is going to commit an act of crime.That person could just have a weapon for his or her own safety.So overall I found this video very interesting and I think this is a great subject to debate and discuss about. Mijo456.
i agree with Mijo456 on this being a very educational video. it also helped me understand more about the Actus Reus, and the Mens Rea. I also agree that law enforcement can over look things like Mens Rea, it think that they just look at the action that took place and automatically draw conclusions, but i guess sometimes it could be hard to determine both. Kibbles n' Vick456
I agree with Mijo456 on the fact that it did teach me more about crime and how these two components are needed to commit a crime. But, I do disagree with the fact that he said law enforcement oversee things, such as mens rea. Because if a police officer disregarded any piece of information on an investigation, he wouldn't be doing his job right. Every piece of information is considered, for instance a domestic violence. A police off must figure why he/she did what they did and what made he/she do what they did. Johnnysavage309456
I also agree with Mijo456 on the aspect that if a human being has a weapon of some sort in their house or vehicle or anywhere, doesn't mean they are planning on committing a crime. Most people now a days do have some sort of small hand gun just for their own safety. Also, if someone has the intent or thought process of a wrong act then they are probably going to commit that act. Not many people will have the thought about it and just let it go anymore. It always ends up with them acting on upon what they thought. CRUSENSGIRL456
I agree with CRUSENSGIRL456 with the weapons thing. Yeah just because they have a weapon does not mean they intend to actually use it. I also think it is stupid that some offenders can't have a weapon or have a weapon anywhere near them. I say this because my dad was an offender years ago and it was a stupid thing that he done, so now he isn't allowed to have any weapons. What if someone were to break in and threaten him? Yes he did do something stupid, but I also know that he has drastically changed and wouldn't do anything stupid again like that. So why isn't he allowed a weapon? Do ex-offenders not have that right to protect themselves anymore? But anyways, having a weapon does not mean they are thinking of going around killing people or sticking them up. Detect456
I really enjoyed this video, it was very informing and gave me a better perspective of the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. I think this is a great law. you shouldn't be able to be charged for just thinking something or just doing something. it should be that both have to be present that that's how it is. like if someone is sleep walking and they commit a crime such as murder, obviously he didn't have the Mens Rea the intention to because he is asleep! of course murder is bad but you can't charge someone with murder if they're are sleeping, of course he would also have to prove that he is a frequent sleep walker. all together this was a great video, and this is one of those laws, us American's should be proud of. Kibble n' Vick.
I agree with Kibble n' Vick, if you arrested someone for conspiracy then they really did not commit a crime. There should be both Mens Reus and Actus Reus to fully determine if someone committed a crime. If we arrested everyone for just thinking about crimes then there would be a major increase in incarcerations and there would be no way to fully prove that they were thinking of committing a crime in the first place. Birdman456
The video was very informal. It basically said the same thing professor White said in class. This topic really can't be taught out of a book. It was interesting to find out that mens rea and actus reus makes a person commits a crime. Although I must say, I believe that you can commit a crime without one or the other. The video was talking about in someone without a stable mind can't really have actus reus. I would have to disagree with that statement, because if you take a look at their motive and see how they applied effort to THINK, PLAN, and EXECUTE, there is obviously a mind that has actus reus, healthy or not. Perfect example would be the shooting in Colorado in 2012. The defense tried to say he wasn't mentally stable. If someone can create a PLAN to make an explosive bomb to detonate at their home, & know how to pull a trigger to kill innocent lives, then you have a actus reus of evil violence. Johnnysavgae309456
I don’t think that law enforcements use Mens Reus and Actus Reus like they should be; if someone committed a crime and they had no intent to do it then they should be treated differently than those who committed a crime and actually meant to do it. When you find out if the person intended to commit a crime then they should be treated as a criminal, but if a person who has no intention to commit a crime and does it unintentionally then they should be treated differently from the other criminals. But it is very hard to determine if a person really intended to commit a crime since you cannot read a criminals mind to determine if they had a motive. Birdman456
I agree, I think that law enforcers try to think for the criminal themselves and then use that against them. When criminals absolutely have no idea that they've committed a crime because of a disease or disorder they have the Mens Rea could probably be the best for them. Even though they weren't thinking it, they had no idea they were going to do it so it wasn't a purposeful act. me456
This video helps explain the Actus Reus and Mens Rea a lot. It kind of of reminds me of the chapter on getting arrested. You can be arrested if the police have actual evidence and not just thinking you have done something. I agree with the law because sometimes lawyers always use the excuse that the person they are prosecuting thought about doing a crime and they try to use that against you. Thinking and actually doing something are two different things especially when it comes to committing a crime. When people get profiled while they are walking down the streets I believe this law doesn't come to mind with some police. If the police see you and they think you're thinking about doing a crime then they stop you no matter what and try to find something against so they can arrest you. me456
I thought it was interesting how the guy made it clear that Actus Reus has to do with a "wrong" action. He helped me to better understand the difference between Actus Reus and Mens Rea. If these two components of crime are used correctly, then people would be prosecuted more fairly. There are way too many people getting put in prison without proof of motive and/or prove of the criminal action. I also thought it was interesting how the man indicated that the two thoughts must be together. This is another big issue. People have been wrongly accused for things just because they have motive. But without the Actus Reus, these people should not be getting put away for several years. Enforcement sometimes overlook this, and just use Mens Rea to put people in prison. Motive does not always mean the offense has actually been committed. racer11p_456
I can completely relate with you on this one. Like I said in my post I felt like I had hardly knew anything about these two subjects but this video definitely helped me better understand I do agree with what you said about how too many people are getting put in prison without proof of motive and/or criminal action, which is why I pretty much said in my blog how some law enforcers oversee things. Mijo456
I kind of feel like today's current system of law enforcement doesn't typically go by the whole concept of Actus Reus and Mens Rea. And not just in law enforcement, but with today's society in general. A lot of people seem to think that if others have any style of firearm, that they're going to abuse their rights with them just because others seem to do so. Like the video said "have the means, but don't have the intention." This video does a great job of explaining this whole concept to us. I feel as if a lot of people try to get over that they were insane at the time of a crime, and couldn't "control" what they were doing at that specific time. But I do believe that when people are under the influence they have some kind of idea what they are doing to an extent, and that should not be an excuse to any degree. Not to mention the fact of the drugs they're using are more than likely illegal. -chev456
Ive started to like this subject a lot even though . when we started I didn't know much about it this definitely is a good subject to debate. It kinds of goes by the saying "if it can happen it will happen" but its plenty of different sides and ways to it so its a good topic to discuss if debating. Actus Reus = Action , Mens Reas = mind (wrong) cant just do one of them , both has to be done to be proved to be called a crime. cashes456
I agree with Birdman456 to an extent. I feel that in theory people who do not intentionally mean to commit crime should be treated differently. However,in actuality I assume the fine line between truly knowing if someone did not mean to commit the crime and if someone is lying to get out of trouble is very thin. It seems that law enforcement/criminal justice is such a complex field that trying to determine if someone was knowingly or unknowingly committing crime would be next to impossible. Marsh456.
I would definitely have to agree with you on this. I don't think that determining someone's exact intent is as easy as people or the media makes it out to be. This is why I think this is an important concept to master and get a grasp of. This definitely would make law enforcement challenging if you are put in a situation where you are expected to serve justice on someone who may or may not have the criminal intent to commit a crime. This is an example of how complex the criminal justice system really is compared to what I thought it would be. Sheepdog456
I feel in law enforcement/criminal justice using discretion can be very complicated, not only when deciding how to punish someone or making an important decision but also trying to understand if a person knowingly or unknowingly committed a crime. For example, if an officer pulls over a person for speeding if both the Men's Rea and Actus Reus are needed, the suspect could tell the officer he did not know he was speeding and not get a citation. This is where strict liability comes into the picture. There are some "crimes" where an officer does not need to prove you had a guilty mind, if he catches you speeding he can give you a citation. Also, for example if the Men's Rea and Actus Reus ideas are in place, it could work to the advantage of a criminal claiming temporary insanity, because he did not know what he was doing. It is widely known that many people try to claim insanity but a VERY small amount ever get the plea. Overall, in theory the Men's Rea and Actus Reus ideas are good but I feel to be an effective law enforcement officer you need to understand that people will lie no matter what it is to get out of trouble. You also need to understand that not all people are criminals and some do tell the truth. Marsh456.
I think this is a great law. There would be nobody left in society if people were arrested for thinking of a crime. It would also be next to impossible to prove whether or not the person was actually thinking about committing a crime without them coming out and confessing. The video was very informative and gave me a better grasp of each law. The only problem with the law is that people will lie in order to get out of charges. LA456
I agree with LA456. If we got in trouble or arrested for thinking something, then most people would end up in jail. I would end up in jail! In the movie Law Abiding Citizen, he plain out says, "I thought about killing him and all the things I would do." They later said, "we have you on tape confessing to the murder." Well that's not true, he clearly says 'I thought about doing it'. This does NOT mean he actually did it. He had the mens rea. He was thinking, but he cannot get arrested and incarcerated for "thinking" anything. That's an example of mens rea that I can kind of make a connection to and the reason he did it. My uncles on the other hand used the actus reus way, where one killed a cop and the other was just an accomplice. It wasn't premeditated murder or anything, he was scared and didn't know how to react, so he acted in the way that took someone's life which is why I don't care if he is in prison cause he did a bad ACT. I liked the video and I like the concepts on both mens rea and actus reus because they are just interesting in general. Detect456
This video was very helpful in getting me to better understand the concept of Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Before watching this, I had no idea that the crown attorney was the one who had to be able to prove the form of the "wrong mind" and "wrong act." Although I agree with the majority of the rules that apply with theses two terms, there is one that stood out in particular. As he even mentioned in the video that most people would not agree with the fact that if someone is mentally unstable and commits a crime that they can not be charged as the Mens Rea would not be present. If someone pursues a punishable act, whether or not they are mentally stable, they should be charged just as anyone else would. All in all, if a human in too unstable to where they don't know the difference between right or wrong, then I believe they should either be in a cared facility or be under twenty-four hour supervision so that they aren't able to go out and commit an act that is unlawful and be able to get away with it. CRUSENSGIRL456
Before taking this class and watching this video, I had no idea that so much went into criminal justice and convicting people. I was certainly not familiar with mens reas or actus reas until watching this video. I think this is a very necessary thing to use when convicting someone. It is important to determine somone's mindset at the time they commit a crime. For an example, let's say that Robert is backing out of his driveway with his car and he does not happen to see a person walking their dog behind him. and he runs over the dog, getting out of the car and apologizing profusely and feeling extremely guilty. Let's say in a different neighborhood Sam is backing up, and he sees his neighbor walking their dog behind him. He hates his neighbor's dog, and he thinks this is a good opportunity to kill it, so he floors it in reverse and and kills the dog. The neighbor then asks him why he did that, and Sam says, "because I hate your dog because it barks at me. In this situation both person's different mindsets should be considered. Robert deserves to have more leniency than Sam, since Robert had no intent to kill a dog, while Sam had every intention once he noticed the dog. I think this lesson is very important to learn in criminal justice. Sheepdog456
The thing I learned was all the different laws out there like criminal, civil, constructional, and family laws. It seems like Canada has a better law system then the U.S it’s like the people can help make laws in Canada at the elections. The video was very informational about Canada laws also. I feel its better hearing all this from professor white in class only because he knows how to get your attention and focus. RED456
If I never took this class i would never found out this much information goes in to the criminal justice system, it takes a lot to think about how to convicting someone. so why don't the U.S have these laws for our criminal system, i think it would be a good idea to have some of Canada laws. this was a lot of good information. so what happens if some say they are crazy but there really not and past all these test and stuff but like two year latter they tell some yea i killed that to and i wanted to say if that person tell can they bring that case back u?crm456
You MUST prove Actus Reas and Mens Rea, to see someone guilty of a crime. There is no way around it. Actus Reas is a wrong action against the law. Going into a bank with the gun is "going into the bank with a gun" The mens rea is "what was the motive"? Was there an intention in robbing the bank? Its interesting to think objectively applying the two concepts. A good example is the hammer in the home. You could have a hammer but that doesn't meant you have intent to commit a crime. You have the means, but wont commit the crime. Its interesting that motive isnt a factor in crime, in Canada. The only have to prove the actual action. Overall good video in describing how Actus Reus and Mens Rea are important in a case. Music456
I can say that this subject sounded familiar but It wasn't something that I knew much about. I had no clue that the crown attorney has to prove someone of Actus Reus and Mens Rea to prove them guilty. All together this video was very educational because It showed me something that I knew very little about. In my personal opinion I feel that some law enforcement people oversee things like Mens Rea because I feel like if someone does have to intention of doing something wrong that there is a good percent chance that, that person will do that wrong. Then like the man said in the video there is also a different side of it such as if someone has a gun or knife it doesn't necessarily mean that he or she is going to commit an act of crime.That person could just have a weapon for his or her own safety.So overall I found this video very interesting and I think this is a great subject to debate and discuss about. Mijo456.
ReplyDeletei agree with Mijo456 on this being a very educational video. it also helped me understand more about the Actus Reus, and the Mens Rea. I also agree that law enforcement can over look things like Mens Rea, it think that they just look at the action that took place and automatically draw conclusions, but i guess sometimes it could be hard to determine both. Kibbles n' Vick456
DeleteI agree with Mijo456 on the fact that it did teach me more about crime and how these two components are needed to commit a crime. But, I do disagree with the fact that he said law enforcement oversee things, such as mens rea. Because if a police officer disregarded any piece of information on an investigation, he wouldn't be doing his job right. Every piece of information is considered, for instance a domestic violence. A police off must figure why he/she did what they did and what made he/she do what they did. Johnnysavage309456
DeleteI also agree with Mijo456 on the aspect that if a human being has a weapon of some sort in their house or vehicle or anywhere, doesn't mean they are planning on committing a crime. Most people now a days do have some sort of small hand gun just for their own safety. Also, if someone has the intent or thought process of a wrong act then they are probably going to commit that act. Not many people will have the thought about it and just let it go anymore. It always ends up with them acting on upon what they thought. CRUSENSGIRL456
DeleteI agree with CRUSENSGIRL456 with the weapons thing. Yeah just because they have a weapon does not mean they intend to actually use it. I also think it is stupid that some offenders can't have a weapon or have a weapon anywhere near them. I say this because my dad was an offender years ago and it was a stupid thing that he done, so now he isn't allowed to have any weapons. What if someone were to break in and threaten him? Yes he did do something stupid, but I also know that he has drastically changed and wouldn't do anything stupid again like that. So why isn't he allowed a weapon? Do ex-offenders not have that right to protect themselves anymore? But anyways, having a weapon does not mean they are thinking of going around killing people or sticking them up. Detect456
DeleteI really enjoyed this video, it was very informing and gave me a better perspective of the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea. I think this is a great law. you shouldn't be able to be charged for just thinking something or just doing something. it should be that both have to be present that that's how it is. like if someone is sleep walking and they commit a crime such as murder, obviously he didn't have the Mens Rea the intention to because he is asleep! of course murder is bad but you can't charge someone with murder if they're are sleeping, of course he would also have to prove that he is a frequent sleep walker. all together this was a great video, and this is one of those laws, us American's should be proud of. Kibble n' Vick.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kibble n' Vick, if you arrested someone for conspiracy then they really did not commit a crime. There should be both Mens Reus and Actus Reus to fully determine if someone committed a crime. If we arrested everyone for just thinking about crimes then there would be a major increase in incarcerations and there would be no way to fully prove that they were thinking of committing a crime in the first place. Birdman456
DeleteThe video was very informal. It basically said the same thing professor White said in class. This topic really can't be taught out of a book. It was interesting to find out that mens rea and actus reus makes a person commits a crime. Although I must say, I believe that you can commit a crime without one or the other. The video was talking about in someone without a stable mind can't really have actus reus. I would have to disagree with that statement, because if you take a look at their motive and see how they applied effort to THINK, PLAN, and EXECUTE, there is obviously a mind that has actus reus, healthy or not. Perfect example would be the shooting in Colorado in 2012. The defense tried to say he wasn't mentally stable. If someone can create a PLAN to make an explosive bomb to detonate at their home, & know how to pull a trigger to kill innocent lives, then you have a actus reus of evil violence. Johnnysavgae309456
ReplyDeleteJohnnysavage309456
DeleteI don’t think that law enforcements use Mens Reus and Actus Reus like they should be; if someone committed a crime and they had no intent to do it then they should be treated differently than those who committed a crime and actually meant to do it. When you find out if the person intended to commit a crime then they should be treated as a criminal, but if a person who has no intention to commit a crime and does it unintentionally then they should be treated differently from the other criminals. But it is very hard to determine if a person really intended to commit a crime since you cannot read a criminals mind to determine if they had a motive. Birdman456
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think that law enforcers try to think for the criminal themselves and then use that against them. When criminals absolutely have no idea that they've committed a crime because of a disease or disorder they have the Mens Rea could probably be the best for them. Even though they weren't thinking it, they had no idea they were going to do it so it wasn't a purposeful act. me456
DeleteThis video helps explain the Actus Reus and Mens Rea a lot. It kind of of reminds me of the chapter on getting arrested. You can be arrested if the police have actual evidence and not just thinking you have done something. I agree with the law because sometimes lawyers always use the excuse that the person they are prosecuting thought about doing a crime and they try to use that against you. Thinking and actually doing something are two different things especially when it comes to committing a crime. When people get profiled while they are walking down the streets I believe this law doesn't come to mind with some police. If the police see you and they think you're thinking about doing a crime then they stop you no matter what and try to find something against so they can arrest you. me456
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how the guy made it clear that Actus Reus has to do with a "wrong" action. He helped me to better understand the difference between Actus Reus and Mens Rea. If these two components of crime are used correctly, then people would be prosecuted more fairly. There are way too many people getting put in prison without proof of motive and/or prove of the criminal action. I also thought it was interesting how the man indicated that the two thoughts must be together. This is another big issue. People have been wrongly accused for things just because they have motive. But without the Actus Reus, these people should not be getting put away for several years. Enforcement sometimes overlook this, and just use Mens Rea to put people in prison. Motive does not always mean the offense has actually been committed. racer11p_456
ReplyDeleteI can completely relate with you on this one. Like I said in my post I felt like I had hardly knew anything about these two subjects but this video definitely helped me better understand I do agree with what you said about how too many people are getting put in prison without proof of motive and/or criminal action, which is why I pretty much said in my blog how some law enforcers oversee things. Mijo456
DeleteI kind of feel like today's current system of law enforcement doesn't typically go by the whole concept of Actus Reus and Mens Rea. And not just in law enforcement, but with today's society in general. A lot of people seem to think that if others have any style of firearm, that they're going to abuse their rights with them just because others seem to do so. Like the video said "have the means, but don't have the intention." This video does a great job of explaining this whole concept to us. I feel as if a lot of people try to get over that they were insane at the time of a crime, and couldn't "control" what they were doing at that specific time. But I do believe that when people are under the influence they have some kind of idea what they are doing to an extent, and that should not be an excuse to any degree. Not to mention the fact of the drugs they're using are more than likely illegal. -chev456
ReplyDeleteIve started to like this subject a lot even though . when we started I didn't know much about it this definitely is a good subject to debate. It kinds of goes by the saying "if it can happen it will happen" but its plenty of different sides and ways to it so its a good topic to discuss if debating. Actus Reus = Action , Mens Reas = mind (wrong) cant just do one of them , both has to be done to be proved to be called a crime. cashes456
ReplyDeleteI agree with Birdman456 to an extent. I feel that in theory people who do not intentionally mean to commit crime should be treated differently. However,in actuality I assume the fine line between truly knowing if someone did not mean to commit the crime and if someone is lying to get out of trouble is very thin. It seems that law enforcement/criminal justice is such a complex field that trying to determine if someone was knowingly or unknowingly committing crime would be next to impossible. Marsh456.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely have to agree with you on this. I don't think that determining someone's exact intent is as easy as people or the media makes it out to be. This is why I think this is an important concept to master and get a grasp of. This definitely would make law enforcement challenging if you are put in a situation where you are expected to serve justice on someone who may or may not have the criminal intent to commit a crime. This is an example of how complex the criminal justice system really is compared to what I thought it would be. Sheepdog456
DeleteI feel in law enforcement/criminal justice using discretion can be very complicated, not only when deciding how to punish someone or making an important decision but also trying to understand if a person knowingly or unknowingly committed a crime. For example, if an officer pulls over a person for speeding if both the Men's Rea and Actus Reus are needed, the suspect could tell the officer he did not know he was speeding and not get a citation. This is where strict liability comes into the picture. There are some "crimes" where an officer does not need to prove you had a guilty mind, if he catches you speeding he can give you a citation. Also, for example if the Men's Rea and Actus Reus ideas are in place, it could work to the advantage of a criminal claiming temporary insanity, because he did not know what he was doing. It is widely known that many people try to claim insanity but a VERY small amount ever get the plea. Overall, in theory the Men's Rea and Actus Reus ideas are good but I feel to be an effective law enforcement officer you need to understand that people will lie no matter what it is to get out of trouble. You also need to understand that not all people are criminals and some do tell the truth. Marsh456.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great law. There would be nobody left in society if people were arrested for thinking of a crime. It would also be next to impossible to prove whether or not the person was actually thinking about committing a crime without them coming out and confessing. The video was very informative and gave me a better grasp of each law. The only problem with the law is that people will lie in order to get out of charges. LA456
ReplyDeleteI agree with LA456. If we got in trouble or arrested for thinking something, then most people would end up in jail. I would end up in jail! In the movie Law Abiding Citizen, he plain out says, "I thought about killing him and all the things I would do." They later said, "we have you on tape confessing to the murder." Well that's not true, he clearly says 'I thought about doing it'. This does NOT mean he actually did it. He had the mens rea. He was thinking, but he cannot get arrested and incarcerated for "thinking" anything. That's an example of mens rea that I can kind of make a connection to and the reason he did it. My uncles on the other hand used the actus reus way, where one killed a cop and the other was just an accomplice. It wasn't premeditated murder or anything, he was scared and didn't know how to react, so he acted in the way that took someone's life which is why I don't care if he is in prison cause he did a bad ACT. I liked the video and I like the concepts on both mens rea and actus reus because they are just interesting in general. Detect456
ReplyDeleteThis video was very helpful in getting me to better understand the concept of Mens Rea and Actus Reus. Before watching this, I had no idea that the crown attorney was the one who had to be able to prove the form of the "wrong mind" and "wrong act." Although I agree with the majority of the rules that apply with theses two terms, there is one that stood out in particular. As he even mentioned in the video that most people would not agree with the fact that if someone is mentally unstable and commits a crime that they can not be charged as the Mens Rea would not be present. If someone pursues a punishable act, whether or not they are mentally stable, they should be charged just as anyone else would. All in all, if a human in too unstable to where they don't know the difference between right or wrong, then I believe they should either be in a cared facility or be under twenty-four hour supervision so that they aren't able to go out and commit an act that is unlawful and be able to get away with it. CRUSENSGIRL456
ReplyDeleteBefore taking this class and watching this video, I had no idea that so much went into criminal justice and convicting people. I was certainly not familiar with mens reas or actus reas until watching this video. I think this is a very necessary thing to use when convicting someone. It is important to determine somone's mindset at the time they commit a crime. For an example, let's say that Robert is backing out of his driveway with his car and he does not happen to see a person walking their dog behind him. and he runs over the dog, getting out of the car and apologizing profusely and feeling extremely guilty. Let's say in a different neighborhood Sam is backing up, and he sees his neighbor walking their dog behind him. He hates his neighbor's dog, and he thinks this is a good opportunity to kill it, so he floors it in reverse and and kills the dog. The neighbor then asks him why he did that, and Sam says, "because I hate your dog because it barks at me. In this situation both person's different mindsets should be considered. Robert deserves to have more leniency than Sam, since Robert had no intent to kill a dog, while Sam had every intention once he noticed the dog. I think this lesson is very important to learn in criminal justice. Sheepdog456
ReplyDeleteThe thing I learned was all the different laws out there like criminal, civil, constructional, and family laws. It seems like Canada has a better law system then the U.S it’s like the people can help make laws in Canada at the elections. The video was very informational about Canada laws also. I feel its better hearing all this from professor white in class only because he knows how to get your attention and focus. RED456
ReplyDeletei believe you are right because if i wasnt in this class i would never found out anything babout this information. crm456
DeleteIf I never took this class i would never found out this much information goes in to the criminal justice system, it takes a lot to think about how to convicting someone. so why don't the U.S have these laws for our criminal system, i think it would be a good idea to have some of Canada laws. this was a lot of good information. so what happens if some say they are crazy but there really not and past all these test and stuff but like two year latter they tell some yea i killed that to and i wanted to say if that person tell can they bring that case back u?crm456
ReplyDeleteYou MUST prove Actus Reas and Mens Rea, to see someone guilty of a crime. There is no way around it. Actus Reas is a wrong action against the law. Going into a bank with the gun is "going into the bank with a gun" The mens rea is "what was the motive"? Was there an intention in robbing the bank? Its interesting to think objectively applying the two concepts. A good example is the hammer in the home. You could have a hammer but that doesn't meant you have intent to commit a crime. You have the means, but wont commit the crime. Its interesting that motive isnt a factor in crime, in Canada. The only have to prove the actual action. Overall good video in describing how Actus Reus and Mens Rea are important in a case.
ReplyDeleteMusic456