Criminal Laws and Mens Rea
Criminal laws are designed to control behavior by defining what is and is not permissible. These laws in some cases dictate what individuals must do. Although these laws are in place to safeguard people, occasionally people do not abide by them, which encourages them to commit crimes. Latin for a guilty thought is mens rea. It simply alludes to the defendant's intentions and thoughts at the time the criminal act was committed. Mens rea is the legal concept that says a criminal act has both a mental and physical component. The mental element is the individual’s awareness that his conduct is criminal, and the physical element, the act itself is the actus rea. Words such as general intent are used alongside men’s rea. However, the usage of such words creates confusion because these are words that are used in the description of criminal liability when the defendant is trying to avoid bringing up a particular result. The general intent is the opposite of the specific intent which states that the defendant followed through with his intentions. To secure a conviction, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant carried out the crime when he or she was in a certain state of mind. This proof is a requirement for conviction. In the absence of the required men’s rea, and the defendant has engaged in actus rea the individual can be convicted of the crime if and depending on the events surrounding the case. However, a conviction should with no doubt be administered to a perpetrator with proper men’s rea as he or she has the knowledge and the intention to commit the crime. For example, if a driver intends to hit a pedestrian then he or she has proper men's rea. If the driver, however, did not see the pedestrian and tried everything not to hit him but ended up hitting him and killing him on the spot and was accused of a murder he did not have proper men's rea, but he did have actus rea. In such a scenario the driver should not be convicted, however, if the driver participated in the crime a conviction should be warranted.
Diplomatic Immunity Vs Legislative Immunity
Diplomatic immunity refers to the legal immunity which aims at ensuring that diplomats are offered a safe passage and therefore considered unsusceptible to any lawsuit or prosecution under the country hosting them. However, the diplomats can still be expelled from the country. Legislative immunity also known as the parliamentary immunity, on the other hand, is a system that grants members of the Parliament partial immunity from prosecution.
Americans working abroad should enjoy diplomatic immunity. Most of these diplomats hold key government positions or positions that serve both the interest of their home and host countries. America is a popular country but this does not mean she doesn't have diplomats in countries which consider her unpopular, on the contrary, she is unpopular in many countries across the globe. There are those countries that blame America for all the evils in the world and thus take every chance they get to legally and politically harass her diplomats. Failure to offer immunity to the diplomats would mean that they would be facing detention and be prosecuted for trumped-up charges.
Competency of the Defendant
Defendant’s competency refers to the ability of the defendant to stand trial. A defendant’s competency involves his ability to understand the charges against him and to assist his defense during the trial. It is an issue that is raised by the defense side with motion. However, it can also be put forward by the prosecutor or by the court. Dealing with a defendant with a questionable competency requires the evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the case in question. There are many people with mental disabilities in the world, but also there are others who may fake a disability for a chance to do less time for a crime they committed. If the defendant is not with surety coherent of his or her criminal act, whether murder or otherwise, he or she should all the same be accountable for their part in the crime. However, the sentence passed on to him should be on the basis of the severity of the disability he or she has. The severity should be determined after careful and thorough studies to evaluate the defendant competency to stand trial.
Goals of Criminal Law
There are various goals associated with criminal law. The criminal justice system aims at deterring criminal activities each day and to devise ways to discourage people from getting in and out of the system. The four goals of criminal law include;
Discouraging people from engaging in criminal activities
Protecting the community from criminals and wrongdoers
Punishing wrongdoers in the society
Rehabilitating and reforming the criminals
These goals aim at protecting the public and work to avoid the occurrence of crimes in future. The goals help in preventing the conviction of innocent persons in criminal activities they never took part in. This is ensured by having a thorough criminal trial process by ensuring that steps pertinent to such a process of determining with facts who truly committed the crime in question. For a conviction to be passed onto an individual there must first be a fair trial in which enough evidence is provided to warrant the conviction. However, in the past, there have been instances of innocent people convicted of crimes they never committed. Several factors can be attributed to this outcome, first being the lack of enough resources to conduct a thorough investigation. Secondly the presence of other factors acting against the defendant including witnesses claiming to place the defendant at the crime scene when it occurred only for forensics to proof otherwise years later. It is, therefore, the duty of the criminal justice system to educate the public of the repercussion of their evidence they offer the court in their positions as witnesses.
References
Gardner, T., & Anderson, T. (2012). Criminal law (11th Ed.).
Martinez, J. (2007). Understanding Mens Rea in Command Responsibility: From Yamashita to Blaskic and Beyond. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 5(3), pp.638-664.
Mueller, R. (2008). FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Washington, DC, pp.25-32.
