Compare contrast Mens Rea Flashcards
1
Q
Similarities Intention and recklessness (compare)
- Both are forms of _______ fault.
- Both involve degrees of choice/commitment to the outcome.
- Both Indirect intention and recklessness require _______ of the consequences
A
subjective…..foresight
2
Q
Distinctions Intention and Recklessness (contrast)
- Recklessness reflects lesser ________ to the outcome than intention.
- A person can directly intend a consequence although it is unlikely to result. Not so indirect intention.
- Indirect intention requires proof that A foresaw the consequence as virtually certain. Recklessness requires proof only of foresight of the ________________.
A
commitment….substantial risk.
3
Q
Similarities Recklessness and Negligence (compare)
- Both recklessness and negligence require proof of risk taking.
- Both Recklessness and negligence are negated if the risk-taking is _______ . (Indirect intention is not (in theory at least).
- Where a person is _________ that he is acting dangerously he is both negligent and reckless as to the result
A
justified….. aware
4
Q
Distinctions Recklessness and Negligence (contrast)
- Recklessness is a ___________ (foreseeing risk). Negligence is a way of behaving (acting in such a way as to create an unjustified risk of causing harm).
- Recklessness involves ___________ fault. Negligence involves __________ fault.
- Most non fatal offences against the person can be satisfied by proof of recklessness. No non fatal offences against the person offence can be committed by negligence.
A
state of mind……..subjective…. objective
5
Q
Similarities Negligence and Intention (compare)
- Both are forms of ________
A
criminal fault
6
Q
Distinctions Negligence and Intention (contrast)
- Negligence, unlike intention, does not require any ______ to the harmful result.
- Intention is a state of mind, not so negligence
- Intention is a form of subjective fault. Negligence is objective fault.
- In the absence of an _________, it is no answer to a crime of intention that the accused’s act was justified.
A
commitment…..affirmative defence