Actually, technically there exists an exception to your formula and that is in the case of inchoate crime, such as attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation. In all these (Mens Rea) cases the actual physical component (actus reus) has not been carried out, but as they are related to a substantive crime, they are therefore indictable offenses under the law.
At 4:30, The slide said that there can be no conviction if the "actus reus" is missing from the offence element. What I would like to know is, isn't that a complete contradiction to what happens in the case of a 'conspiracy' charge? Please clarify.
trump Hi. The actus reus is the physical act. For example, a person can be charged even for an inchoate offense or an attempt of a crime, if the 'actions' he has taken is more than preparatory. The same would apply for conspiracy. The actus reus is considered broadly here. Hope this clarifies it :)
Fishing without a license,what facts/evidence would you rely to prove the codes apply to me don't you have to prove the code applies to me first before you can charge me with violating the code? just asking
First of all, thank you for these videos! I was just wondering, in one slide you mention that actus reus and mens rea both have to occur, but in another you mention that there can be a conviction when there is an actus reus even though there is no mens rea. How does that make sense?
Hi June. I’m glad these lessons have been helpful. Yes, whatever the offence my be, the elements will always be made up of the actus reus and the mens rea. However, the requisite of some offences may not need a mens rea to be present in order to be charged. For example, strict liability offences (where the commision of the offence itself is sufficient. You need not intend or have the knowledge to the fact). A good example would be a traffic offence or selling of adulterated food in a shop.
Can a person representing an organization be sued for criminal offense due to a negligence of official duty on the part of the person? How is the evidence found?
It’s called “Moral Person’s Criminal Responsibility or Corporate Criminal Responsibility”: Many offenses in this context are committed by group/individual in the framework of enterprises acting as moral person(s). The organization will be held liable for offenses committed on their behalf by their representative(s). It’s important to note that the criminal liability of the organization with legal personality does not exclude the criminal liability of the representative, those who hold leadership posts or their co-offenders and accomplices. Such criminal liability is established when the offender(s) acted by virtue of: 1. Power of representation, 2. Decision- making power, 3. Power of supervision, etc.
Hi Lawrence. The absence of the actus reus or the physical act would negate any criminal liability. The mere 'intent' alone is insufficient to attract criminal liability, unless the defendant has gone so close to the actually commission of the physical act that it would be 'more than merely preparatory', thus establishing an 'attempt'.
Thank you, this has simplified the points our lecturers should have so well.
His description is full of money 💰 🤑
Thank you so much. You simplified a complex area of law in a very understandable way!
So proud to be 🇱🇰🙌
Actually, technically there exists an exception to your formula and that is in the case of inchoate crime, such as attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation. In all these (Mens Rea) cases the actual physical component (actus reus) has not been carried out, but as they are related to a substantive crime, they are therefore indictable offenses under the law.
He mentioned inchoate crimes in the video
At 4:30, The slide said that there can be no conviction if the "actus reus" is missing from the offence element. What I would like to know is, isn't that a complete contradiction to what happens in the case of a 'conspiracy' charge? Please clarify.
trump Hi. The actus reus is the physical act. For example, a person can be charged even for an inchoate offense or an attempt of a crime, if the 'actions' he has taken is more than preparatory. The same would apply for conspiracy. The actus reus is considered broadly here. Hope this clarifies it :)
Actus reus + no mens rea) = can convict via strict liability. Would this include omission, possession and situational crimes?
Yes. The attributes of each offense remains the same. In other words, it will always be a combination of requirements between actus reus and mens rea.
5 elements of Crime on Finger's tips, plz watch Sher Aman Law Classes- "Five Elements of Crime"
How do you go about discovering mens rea?
Nice explanation
Text should be used deep ink
Thanks
Fishing without a license,what facts/evidence would you rely to prove the codes apply to me don't you have to prove the code applies to me first before you can charge me with violating the code? just asking
Huck Fin Ahhhjh.....a Lysander Spooner fan I see....Haha Haha....same here my friend. I doubt you will get an answer.
The fact that you were caught fishing without a license?
What do you mean by crime proper?
A good insight
1. conduct; 2. wrongfulness 3. fault
Super lecture sir thanks
can yoy help us with commonlaw cases
Prevention of Sexual Assault, Mandatory Classes, for boys 6th thru 12th, grade!!!!!
Thanks a lot!
First of all, thank you for these videos! I was just wondering, in one slide you mention that actus reus and mens rea both have to occur, but in another you mention that there can be a conviction when there is an actus reus even though there is no mens rea. How does that make sense?
Hi June. I’m glad these lessons have been helpful. Yes, whatever the offence my be, the elements will always be made up of the actus reus and the mens rea. However, the requisite of some offences may not need a mens rea to be present in order to be charged. For example, strict liability offences (where the commision of the offence itself is sufficient. You need not intend or have the knowledge to the fact). A good example would be a traffic offence or selling of adulterated food in a shop.
Can a person representing an organization be sued for criminal offense due to a negligence of official duty on the part of the person? How is the evidence found?
I believe that liability would fall within the ambit or Tort as opposed to Criminality.
I believe that would fall under Corporate Criminal Liability
It’s called “Moral Person’s Criminal Responsibility or Corporate Criminal Responsibility”:
Many offenses in this context are committed by group/individual in the framework of enterprises acting as moral person(s).
The organization will be held liable for offenses committed on their behalf by their representative(s).
It’s important to note that the criminal liability of the organization with legal personality does not exclude the criminal liability of the representative, those who hold leadership posts or their co-offenders and accomplices.
Such criminal liability is established when the offender(s) acted by virtue of: 1. Power of representation, 2. Decision- making power, 3. Power of supervision, etc.
thank you
Remember you are guilty untill proven innocent..
These are not the elements of criminal law these are the elements of crime.. Dont propage wrong information
Hi Umer. The title of the video is ‘Elements of an Offence”.
Not clearly visible thanks
so a person can have an intent to kill someone and not actually kill them and not be convicted?
Hi Lawrence. The absence of the actus reus or the physical act would negate any criminal liability. The mere 'intent' alone is insufficient to attract criminal liability, unless the defendant has gone so close to the actually commission of the physical act that it would be 'more than merely preparatory', thus establishing an 'attempt'.
With the aid of relevant authorities, explain in detail the components of an offence
This is beautiful
🙏🏽🙏🏽
way too fast for me.
This vedeo is alright.
Video
Thank you sir for information