Chapter 4: The General Principles of Criminal Liability: Mens Rea, Concurrence, Ignorance, and Mistake Flashcards
culpability or blameworthiness
the idea that it’s fair and just to punish only people we can blame
motive
something that causes a person to act
subjective fault
fault that requires a “bad mind” in the actor
objective fault
requires no purposeful or conscious bad mind in the actor
strict liability
liability without either subjective or objective fault
general intent
the intent to commit the criminal act forbidden by statute
specific intent
the general intent to commit the actus reus of a crime plus the intent to cause a criminally harmful result
purposely
the most blameworthy mental state requiring the actor’s “conscious object” to be to commit crimes or cause criminal results
knowingly
the mental state of awareness in conduct crimes and, in result crimes, awareness that it is “practically certain” that the conduct will cause the bad result
recklessly
conscious creation of a “substantial and unjustifiable” risk of criminal harm
negligently
the mental attitude that a person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involved a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.
what are the levels of culpability?
- purposely
- knowingly
- recklessly
- negligently
principle of concurrence
come mental fault has to trigger the criminal act in conduct crimes and the cause in result crimes
causation
holding an actor criminally accountable for the results of their conduct
factual cause
also called “but for” cause or “cause in fact”; if it weren’t for an actor’s conduct, the result wouldn’t have occurred
legal (‘proximate”) cause
a subjective question that asks, “Is it fair to blame Defendant for the harm triggered by a chain of events their action(s) set in motion?”
intervening cause
an event that comes between the initial act in a sequence and the end result
ignorance maxim
the presumption that the defendant(s) knew the law(s) they were breaking
mistake of fact
a defense to criminal liability whenever the mistake prevents the formation of any fault-based mental attitude – namely, purposefully, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently
failure-of-proof defense
mistake defenses in which defendants usually present enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the mens rea required for criminal liability
The Complexity of Mens Rea (slides)
- difficult to discover and prove in court
- vague and incomplete definitions
- broad spectrum of mental attitudes
- may be different attitudes for different elements
- motive and intent
(motive is something that causes a person to act. motive is NOT a required element of a crime.)
