Learned a new latin phrase: mens rea

warrior_won

Time Out
Nov 21, 2007
415
2
18
Was doing some case law research on the subjects of police negligence and misconduct, and learned a new latin phrase: mens rea.

Here's the definition from www.nolo.com

The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act (the actus reus) in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

The intent!

By the way, who was it that said it was unethical for an officer of the court (lawyer) to question another officer of the court (police officer)? From reading case law, I can see that police officers get ripped to shreds all of the time in the courts.

There are cases where the police are accused of negligence, assault, maliscious prosecution, use of excessive force, unreasonable search and seizure, you name it. I was just looking at one case where the police were accused of conspiracy to traffic narcotics. Unethical to accuse and question the police in court? My ass!
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Long time ago here at CC I tried to interest people in examining "intent"...no one cares so why bother?
 

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
157
63
Edmonton AB
I must have missed that thread MDB - I'd have been interested. I've said many times that it's the intent within one's actions that speaks the loudest. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject.
 

Vereya

Council Member
Apr 20, 2006
2,003
54
48
Tula
A person's intent is interesting enough in itself, from an abstract point of view. But I'd rather overlook the intent, and look at the result. You know that saying - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And intent is harder to figure out, it might be something totally different from what you think it is, or from what you are told it is. And actions speak for themselves.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
ultimately, intention is only a fraction of the overall picture of how to judge a person's actions.

There are simply too many mental issues which make it possible for intention to not jive with action. And it's too easy to lie about what your intention really was.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Intent is the foundation of criminal law. Without it everyone would be criminals.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Intent isn't the basis.

If it were, then no one would ever be charged with a crime for dangerous driving... they didn't INTEND to get in an accident (who would?).

People wouldn't be charged with criminal negligence. They never INTENDED for anyone to die when they didn't perform their job properly.

Not to mention those who have intentions to murder, yet don't succeed. They aren't still charged with murder, even if it was their intent. They're charged with the mere action, the attempt at murder.

Intent is only a fraction of what we use to judge action in criminal law. Action and result bear much more weight.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Usually when you drive to fast you intended to, the intent of drinking is the altered state, intent is the basis. It is my shared intent to start an arguement about it.:smile:
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
..and if you accidentally tried to open the wrong car door in the parking lot, the car that looks exactly like yours three spaces away, then you were an attempted car thief..no excuses, bring on the charges. ;-)
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Usually when you drive to fast you intended to, the intent of drinking is the altered state, intent is the basis. It is my shared intent to start an arguement about it.:smile:

well if that were the case, then those who drive too fast and/or drink on the road, would all be given the same sentence regardless of what happens as a result of that 'intent'. But they aren't all judged the same are they? They're judged based on the results. No accident results in a different sentence than killing a family of five does. So clearly, the 'intent' isn't what the criminal system bases their decisions on. The result is.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
..and if you accidentally tried to open the wrong car door in the parking lot, the car that looks exactly like yours three spaces away, then you were an attempted car thief..no excuses, bring on the charges. ;-)

hey, I never said it didn't factor in... I said it's a part of the decision. And I'm betting if you broke the window and hotwired the car, unsure of why your key wasn't working, they'd ignore your professed intent, and prosecute you. lol.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
well if that were the case, then those who drive too fast and/or drink on the road, would all be given the same sentence regardless of what happens as a result of that 'intent'. But they aren't all judged the same are they? They're judged based on the results. No accident results in a different sentence than killing a family of five does. So clearly, the 'intent' isn't what the criminal system bases their decisions on. The result is.

You're quilty of thinking about it, lots of criminals remain at large. We expect alegiance to a higher power than the system here at CCC. There's no substitute for sweet intentions.:smile:
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I suppose if you rode of someone elses bicycle thinking it was you own it would be a mistake of fact. That sort of thing.
 

warrior_won

Time Out
Nov 21, 2007
415
2
18
ultimately, intention is only a fraction of the overall picture of how to judge a person's actions.

There are simply too many mental issues which make it possible for intention to not jive with action. And it's too easy to lie about what your intention really was.

That's true. You can put a spin on your intent, as to make your actions appear other than what they truly are. Let me offer an example:

Take the case of a police officer who violates a private citizen's rights to privacy. Let's suppose that an officer releases information about a citizen that he has no right or authority to release, and he does so in order to gain information that he has no right or authority to collect. This is the action. We do not know the intent until we make an issue of the privacy violation.

So let's suppose that we make an issue of the violation. Let's also suppose that we use another authority (The Privacy Commissioner, for example) to determine that a violation of the person's privacy had indeed occurred.

Let's suppose that the officer, or the officer's agent, in response to the finding, offers that the offending officer did so only with the best of intent. That his intent was not to invade the person's privacy, but to ensure that the citizen was getting the best possible assistance and service from the officer and the police service. Can we accept this explanation at face value, or should we dismiss this explanation as mere spin and counter that the officer had more sinister intentions?

Your thoughts?