Just like I said in my last post I keep on learning these things about Mens Rea and Actu Reus. The main thing that I got from this video was that acts such as speeding, you wouldn't have to show proof of Mens Rea. So pretty much the act of speeding is Actus Reus. Overall the whole Strict Liability thing was a subject that kinda confused me until they gave an example on if a attendant at a gas station sold you alcohol or a lottery ticket and you were underage but she/he swore that you looked old enough, she /he would still be liable for something that they think isn't there fault. Overall I think strict liability is a good thing because it does do good for our communities and help protect the public. This video was very good because I feel like It went more into depth on the Mens Rea and Actus Reus.
To second with Mijo456, Its good to learn more about mens reus and actus reus because its always good to know how a criminal works. With strict liability, I think it kinda sounds the same as zero tolerance. If you catch underage person drinking, they have no mercy rule or breaks when they get caught. Because they know they're not supposed to do it but do it anyway. So when they get caught, there shouldn't be any excuses or talking. Johnnysavage309456
I agree with Johnnysavage309456 that in certain situations that there should be no breaks. Underage drinking is a good example and like he said they do it when they aren't suppose to and there should be no excuses. LA456
I agree with the previous posts especially on underage drinking. People under 21 can't drink and when they do, there is no need to prove mens rea because it was illegal to begin with for them. They committed an act in which they knew the consequences so that already proves mens rea right there. Detect456
It is hard to really understand if a criminal had both Mens Reu and Actus Reus because there is no way to determine if the person is guilty for the crime. But since we have Strict liability for a person that said that they did not intend to have commit a crime shows that Mens Reu really does not matter. I personally like strict liability because it doesn’t matter if the person had motive to commit a crime, it just looks at the fact that the person committed a crime and they will be punished for said crime. This way it can end people trying to guess if a person really knew that they were committing a crime and just punish them accordingly. Birdman456
This video as well was very informative. I liked how this video broke down the difference between strict liability and actus reus. Also it was kinda neat how he explained strict liability such as speeding. You speed, but you don't think about doing it because you just do it, which is wrong under no circumstances. Like for example, when we do stings to buy alcohol from restaurants and stores, unfortunately if that person sells to us with out checking ID or asking our birth date, then regardless of the fact, that person still sold to us knowing what the procedure is or not, he is liable and will be getting the consequences. To some people when driving, strict liability isn't in play, say someone robs a bank and takes off in a car. They will do anything and everything to escape knowing that they are speeding, and breaking every other traffic law and disobeying every street sign to escape. With the case with the cottage, I agree with the verdict of acquitting her, disregarding the fact she wasn't supposed to give the kids her cottage. Because I believe you can't have strict liability with a second or third party and because she didn't know what they're acts were inside the cottage. Johnnysavage309456
I am totally with you on your post because Its just about exactly what mine was about. I really didn't understand the whole strict liability thing until they gave me a example about the underage lottery ticket. I also feel like strict liability is kinda a sticky situation because for example what if a kid came in with a fake ID and you were the clerk and you scanned it and it went through. Then come to show that, that ID ended up being fake and you loose your job. I think If you absolutely didn't know it was fake then you shouldn't get in trouble for it. Other that that I would say that I agree with your blog post. Mijo456
I also agree Johnnysavage. Some people think they can get away with speeding and other things all because "everyone else speeds, it is just instinct." If people want to speed that it is their choice. However, you do in fact know that you are going over the speed limit, and those people should not be mad that you are being punished for in fact committing a violation. I now understand why strict liability is there for law enforcement. Someone will try to say, "I didn't know I was going 80 mph in a 50mph zone." However they are still guilty with strict liability. Sheepdog456
The strict liability is good and sometimes bad. It's good because sometimes when something is happening and it's illegal you really don't know about the rules or law behind it. If someone is doing something wrong but it's reasonable that they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong then they shouldn't be punished unless it's flat out wrong. I agree with the lady and her cottage. She had no idea they were doing drugs in there and she didn't ask if they were so I agree with them not charging her. It wasn't in her mind that they were doing drugs and she didn't see them so she had no knowledge. me456
Taking in the information that has been given in the two blogs, I am more aware of the components needed in order to correctly prosecute a person for a criminal action. I thought it was interesting how you don't need to worry about Mens Rea if you are dealing with strict liability. When the man uses the example of speeding, it helped me to better understand how strict liability works. There are a lot of traffic crimes that are being committed throughout the day. Many people are completely unaware that they are committing an offense when it comes to traffic or driving. It was also interesting how it doesn't matter if you are aware of it or not, it makes no difference at all. They are still liable no matter what. racer11p_456
I think strict liability is a awesome thing for the communities because it helps protect the citizens as a whole even the example helped me understand more how they work , i sometimes don't think it works all the time because i don't understand how would they always prove someone guilty. i agree with johnnysavage309456 when he makes the example about underage drinking and also its very similar to the zero tolerance. cashes456
I agree with chases456. I think that strict liability can be a very useful tool for officers to help protect communities. As he stated, most all ideas/systems have flaws but overall this idea helps protect citizens and to an extent ensures that people breaking the law will be punished in some form. I think it is important to note that when using strict liability you do not need to worry about the Men's Rea, you only worry if they have committed the guilty act. Marsh456.
As I stated in previous posts, there are many ways to look at the men's rea, actus reus, and strict liability. In some cases if you use one you do no use the other, yet we are told that both the men's rea and actus reus must be used when saying someone committed a crime. I find it very interesting how this system works. We know that the functions of criminal law are to protect/punish and maintain/teach, you want to teach social boundaries to help deter crime. You also want to make sure you are protecting the citizens of the said community. If criminals are lying about not knowingly committing a crime and they are let go to commit it again, the citizens are not effectively being protected. I have learned a lot about the men's rea and actus reus and how they tie into the idea of strict liability. I truly am enjoying this chapter. Marsh456.
I am reading a book right now and in it, it gives an example of strict liability. (The book isn't on anything to do with mens rea or strict liability but it gives a little example that I caught). But the woman in it runs a stop sign and runs into a truck and puts a dent into it. She never meant to hit it. It was a strict liability I believe because there was a tree in the way, but she should have been more careful at an intersection like that. Strict liability, I think is kind of confusing based on what he said, so the video didn't quite help, but it could have been his accent that threw it off. But otherwise I think from class that I got it pretty well down. Detect456
As I mentioned in my other posts, I still did not know much about strict liability before learning in class and also this video. Honestly I did not know that strict liability can rule out mens rea in a case determining criminal liability. I think strict liability can be a good and a bad thing. It is a good thing in the case of speeding and other traffic violations. If you have a person who is weaving in and out of traffic going 80 mph, who almost causes four collisions, has committed strict liability. If they had the strict intent to try to drive dangerous, then it is mens rea. However, if they are just running late for work, and did not mean to, it does not matter because of strict liability. Rightfully so, because being late to work is not an excuse for putting other lives in danger. However, strict liability might not be too good for someone who truly did not intend for something to happen. For example, say there is a new law stating no talking on the cell phone will go in effect the next day. Not every single person in that state will know about it. The next day a man is driving and talking on his cell phone, completely unaware that it is against the law as of yesterday. He gets a ticket even though he had no guilty intention of breaking the law.
Just like I said in my last post I keep on learning these things about Mens Rea and Actu Reus. The main thing that I got from this video was that acts such as speeding, you wouldn't have to show proof of Mens Rea. So pretty much the act of speeding is Actus Reus. Overall the whole Strict Liability thing was a subject that kinda confused me until they gave an example on if a attendant at a gas station sold you alcohol or a lottery ticket and you were underage but she/he swore that you looked old enough, she /he would still be liable for something that they think isn't there fault. Overall I think strict liability is a good thing because it does do good for our communities and help protect the public. This video was very good because I feel like It went more into depth on the Mens Rea and Actus Reus.
ReplyDeleteMijo 451
DeleteTo second with Mijo456, Its good to learn more about mens reus and actus reus because its always good to know how a criminal works. With strict liability, I think it kinda sounds the same as zero tolerance. If you catch underage person drinking, they have no mercy rule or breaks when they get caught. Because they know they're not supposed to do it but do it anyway. So when they get caught, there shouldn't be any excuses or talking. Johnnysavage309456
DeleteI agree with Johnnysavage309456 that in certain situations that there should be no breaks. Underage drinking is a good example and like he said they do it when they aren't suppose to and there should be no excuses. LA456
DeleteI agree with the previous posts especially on underage drinking. People under 21 can't drink and when they do, there is no need to prove mens rea because it was illegal to begin with for them. They committed an act in which they knew the consequences so that already proves mens rea right there. Detect456
DeleteIt is hard to really understand if a criminal had both Mens Reu and Actus Reus because there is no way to determine if the person is guilty for the crime. But since we have Strict liability for a person that said that they did not intend to have commit a crime shows that Mens Reu really does not matter. I personally like strict liability because it doesn’t matter if the person had motive to commit a crime, it just looks at the fact that the person committed a crime and they will be punished for said crime. This way it can end people trying to guess if a person really knew that they were committing a crime and just punish them accordingly. Birdman456
ReplyDeleteThis video as well was very informative. I liked how this video broke down the difference between strict liability and actus reus. Also it was kinda neat how he explained strict liability such as speeding. You speed, but you don't think about doing it because you just do it, which is wrong under no circumstances. Like for example, when we do stings to buy alcohol from restaurants and stores, unfortunately if that person sells to us with out checking ID or asking our birth date, then regardless of the fact, that person still sold to us knowing what the procedure is or not, he is liable and will be getting the consequences. To some people when driving, strict liability isn't in play, say someone robs a bank and takes off in a car. They will do anything and everything to escape knowing that they are speeding, and breaking every other traffic law and disobeying every street sign to escape. With the case with the cottage, I agree with the verdict of acquitting her, disregarding the fact she wasn't supposed to give the kids her cottage. Because I believe you can't have strict liability with a second or third party and because she didn't know what they're acts were inside the cottage. Johnnysavage309456
ReplyDeleteI am totally with you on your post because Its just about exactly what mine was about. I really didn't understand the whole strict liability thing until they gave me a example about the underage lottery ticket. I also feel like strict liability is kinda a sticky situation because for example what if a kid came in with a fake ID and you were the clerk and you scanned it and it went through. Then come to show that, that ID ended up being fake and you loose your job. I think If you absolutely didn't know it was fake then you shouldn't get in trouble for it. Other that that I would say that I agree with your blog post. Mijo456
DeleteI also agree Johnnysavage. Some people think they can get away with speeding and other things all because "everyone else speeds, it is just instinct." If people want to speed that it is their choice. However, you do in fact know that you are going over the speed limit, and those people should not be mad that you are being punished for in fact committing a violation. I now understand why strict liability is there for law enforcement. Someone will try to say, "I didn't know I was going 80 mph in a 50mph zone." However they are still guilty with strict liability. Sheepdog456
DeleteThe strict liability is good and sometimes bad. It's good because sometimes when something is happening and it's illegal you really don't know about the rules or law behind it. If someone is doing something wrong but it's reasonable that they had no idea that what they were doing was wrong then they shouldn't be punished unless it's flat out wrong. I agree with the lady and her cottage. She had no idea they were doing drugs in there and she didn't ask if they were so I agree with them not charging her. It wasn't in her mind that they were doing drugs and she didn't see them so she had no knowledge. me456
ReplyDeleteTaking in the information that has been given in the two blogs, I am more aware of the components needed in order to correctly prosecute a person for a criminal action. I thought it was interesting how you don't need to worry about Mens Rea if you are dealing with strict liability. When the man uses the example of speeding, it helped me to better understand how strict liability works. There are a lot of traffic crimes that are being committed throughout the day. Many people are completely unaware that they are committing an offense when it comes to traffic or driving. It was also interesting how it doesn't matter if you are aware of it or not, it makes no difference at all. They are still liable no matter what. racer11p_456
ReplyDeleteI think strict liability is a awesome thing for the communities because it helps protect the citizens as a whole even the example helped me understand more how they work , i sometimes don't think it works all the time because i don't understand how would they always prove someone guilty. i agree with johnnysavage309456 when he makes the example about underage drinking and also its very similar to the zero tolerance. cashes456
ReplyDeleteI agree with chases456. I think that strict liability can be a very useful tool for officers to help protect communities. As he stated, most all ideas/systems have flaws but overall this idea helps protect citizens and to an extent ensures that people breaking the law will be punished in some form. I think it is important to note that when using strict liability you do not need to worry about the Men's Rea, you only worry if they have committed the guilty act. Marsh456.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated in previous posts, there are many ways to look at the men's rea, actus reus, and strict liability. In some cases if you use one you do no use the other, yet we are told that both the men's rea and actus reus must be used when saying someone committed a crime. I find it very interesting how this system works. We know that the functions of criminal law are to protect/punish and maintain/teach, you want to teach social boundaries to help deter crime. You also want to make sure you are protecting the citizens of the said community. If criminals are lying about not knowingly committing a crime and they are let go to commit it again, the citizens are not effectively being protected. I have learned a lot about the men's rea and actus reus and how they tie into the idea of strict liability. I truly am enjoying this chapter. Marsh456.
ReplyDeleteI am reading a book right now and in it, it gives an example of strict liability. (The book isn't on anything to do with mens rea or strict liability but it gives a little example that I caught). But the woman in it runs a stop sign and runs into a truck and puts a dent into it. She never meant to hit it. It was a strict liability I believe because there was a tree in the way, but she should have been more careful at an intersection like that. Strict liability, I think is kind of confusing based on what he said, so the video didn't quite help, but it could have been his accent that threw it off. But otherwise I think from class that I got it pretty well down. Detect456
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in my other posts, I still did not know much about strict liability before learning in class and also this video. Honestly I did not know that strict liability can rule out mens rea in a case determining criminal liability. I think strict liability can be a good and a bad thing. It is a good thing in the case of speeding and other traffic violations. If you have a person who is weaving in and out of traffic going 80 mph, who almost causes four collisions, has committed strict liability. If they had the strict intent to try to drive dangerous, then it is mens rea. However, if they are just running late for work, and did not mean to, it does not matter because of strict liability. Rightfully so, because being late to work is not an excuse for putting other lives in danger. However, strict liability might not be too good for someone who truly did not intend for something to happen. For example, say there is a new law stating no talking on the cell phone will go in effect the next day. Not every single person in that state will know about it. The next day a man is driving and talking on his cell phone, completely unaware that it is against the law as of yesterday. He gets a ticket even though he had no guilty intention of breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteSheepdog456^
Delete