Mens rea and actus reus: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) Created page with "{{g}}A guity mind, from the axiomatic Latin expression which founds the English criminal law, ''actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea''<ref>You see this often articulated as..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}A | {{g}}A guilty mind, from the axiomatic Latin expression which founds the English criminal law, ''actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'':<ref>You see this often articulated as “actus ''reus'' non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,” but with my rudimentary grasp of Latin, that is a reus too far.</ref> “An ''act'' is not guilty unless the ''mind'' is guilty”. What counts as a guilty mind will depend on the offence, or wrong, in question. For criminal acts, it will generally be [[intention]] or [[recklessness]]; for [[strict liability]] offences and torts, more likely no more than [[gross negligence]] or [[negligence]]. Only the [[blameless inadvertence|blamelessly inadvertent]] get away unscathed, and even they can fall prey to offences of [[absolute liability]]. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[degrees of liability]] | *[[degrees of liability]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
Revision as of 09:51, 27 November 2020
|
A guilty mind, from the axiomatic Latin expression which founds the English criminal law, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea:[1] “An act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty”. What counts as a guilty mind will depend on the offence, or wrong, in question. For criminal acts, it will generally be intention or recklessness; for strict liability offences and torts, more likely no more than gross negligence or negligence. Only the blamelessly inadvertent get away unscathed, and even they can fall prey to offences of absolute liability.
See also
References
- ↑ You see this often articulated as “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,” but with my rudimentary grasp of Latin, that is a reus too far.