http://glasses-justice.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomhigh2010-01-19 04:16 pm
glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in fandomhigh2010-01-19 04:16 pm
Entry tags:
Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #3, Jan 19]
"This week," Alex said, "we're going to be discussing something known as mens rea. In Latin, the full expression is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea -- the act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty. In other words, we're going to talk about a specific kind of intent."
This was more a procedural issue than last week's death penalty discussion, but Alex hoped the students would listen further than 'oh, no, Latin' and realize the issue was actually fairly intriguing. At least, if you were a law geek, anyway.
"What does it mean to have a guilty mind?" Alex lifted her shoulders. "In most cases, it means the ability to form the intent to commit those actions. If a toddler is playing with a loaded gun, and shoots a sibling, the situation is a grim tragedy. If a sixteen-year-old does the same thing, it would still be a tragedy, but many would consider the teenager old enough to be held accountable. The teenager should know that guns are dangerous, while the toddler would not comprehend that.
"Age isn't the only qualifier. A man in the grip of paranoid schizophrenic delusions shoots his neighbor because he thinks his neighbor is an alien sent to kill him. Should he be held accountable? Plenty would say no. What if the man had previously undergone treatment for schizophrenia, but elected to stop taking his medication? It could be assumed then that his lucid self knew the risks and chose to accept them. The matter becomes murkier if the schizophrenic was never previously violent, and had no reason to think he would be this time.
"Mental capability can also refer to someone with certain disabilities. A severely retarded woman playing with a loaded gun may not be any more capable of understanding the possible consequences than the toddler above. So what about someone mildly retarded? What about a person who is less intelligent than the average? If a man receives a head injury and loses the ability to control his impulses, then robs a liquor store at gunpoint, what sort of punishment should he receive?
"If a woman drives herself home from a bar, drunk, and runs over a pedestrian, few would argue that she should be found guilty of a crime. What if her drink was 'spiked,' and she did not know that she was intoxicated? What if she was drinking at home, but suddenly needed to drive a friend to the hospital? Her intentions matter.
"Mens rea, in its essence, is asking us who was able to form the intent to cause harm -- or chose to act in a way that showed a clear indifference to the result of those actions. So let's talk about intent."
This was more a procedural issue than last week's death penalty discussion, but Alex hoped the students would listen further than 'oh, no, Latin' and realize the issue was actually fairly intriguing. At least, if you were a law geek, anyway.
"What does it mean to have a guilty mind?" Alex lifted her shoulders. "In most cases, it means the ability to form the intent to commit those actions. If a toddler is playing with a loaded gun, and shoots a sibling, the situation is a grim tragedy. If a sixteen-year-old does the same thing, it would still be a tragedy, but many would consider the teenager old enough to be held accountable. The teenager should know that guns are dangerous, while the toddler would not comprehend that.
"Age isn't the only qualifier. A man in the grip of paranoid schizophrenic delusions shoots his neighbor because he thinks his neighbor is an alien sent to kill him. Should he be held accountable? Plenty would say no. What if the man had previously undergone treatment for schizophrenia, but elected to stop taking his medication? It could be assumed then that his lucid self knew the risks and chose to accept them. The matter becomes murkier if the schizophrenic was never previously violent, and had no reason to think he would be this time.
"Mental capability can also refer to someone with certain disabilities. A severely retarded woman playing with a loaded gun may not be any more capable of understanding the possible consequences than the toddler above. So what about someone mildly retarded? What about a person who is less intelligent than the average? If a man receives a head injury and loses the ability to control his impulses, then robs a liquor store at gunpoint, what sort of punishment should he receive?
"If a woman drives herself home from a bar, drunk, and runs over a pedestrian, few would argue that she should be found guilty of a crime. What if her drink was 'spiked,' and she did not know that she was intoxicated? What if she was drinking at home, but suddenly needed to drive a friend to the hospital? Her intentions matter.
"Mens rea, in its essence, is asking us who was able to form the intent to cause harm -- or chose to act in a way that showed a clear indifference to the result of those actions. So let's talk about intent."
Re: Discussion: Mens Rea - JST03
Re: Discussion: Mens Rea - JST03
Re: Discussion: Mens Rea - JST03