Mens rea and actus reus: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older editNewer edit →
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}“[[Mens rea]]” is 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”.  
{{a|latin|}}“[[Mens rea]]” is 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 sufficiently 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]].
What counts as a sufficiently 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]].

Revision as of 13:04, 5 January 2021

The JC’s guide to pithy Latin adages
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

“Mens rea” is 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 sufficiently 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

  1. ↑ 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.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Mens_rea_and_actus_reus&oldid=52275"