Mens rea

Undang-undang jenayah
Sebahagian daripada siricommon law
Unsur-unsur jenayah
	Actus reus·Penyebaban·Persetujuan
	Mens rea·Niat (jenayah)
	Niat dlm undang² Inggeris·Kesemberonoan
	Kebutaan sengaja·Kecuaian jenayah
	Ignorantia juris non excusat
	Liabiliti vikarius·Liabiliti korporat
	Liabiliti ketat
Kelas jenayah
	Feloni/Kesalahan boleh dakwa·Hibrid
	Misdemeanur/Kesalahan perbicaraan terus
	Pelanggaran
	Kesalahan terangkum yang lebih ringan
Jenayah terhadap orang
	Serangan·Serangan sentuh·Rompakan
	Penculikan·Rogol
	Kacau-bilau·Pematian orang·Pembunuhan
Jenayah terhadap harta
	Kecurian·Larseni·Jenayah kebakaran
	Penggelapan·Dakwaan palsu
	Pemerasan·Pemalsuan·Jenayah komputer
Jenayah terhadap keadilan
	Halangan terhadap keadilan·Sogokan
	Sumpah bohong·Kegagalan pelaporan feloni
Jenayah inkoat
	Pendorongan·Cubaan
	Konspirasi·Peserta
Subset
	Prosedur jenayah
	Kategori:Pembelaan jenayah
Bidang common law yang lain
	Undang-undang:Kontrak·Tort·Harta
	Wasiatdanamanah·Bukti

Dalamundang-undang jenayah,mens rea– istilahbahasa Latinuntuk"minda yang bersalah"^[1]– adalah biasanya salah satu dariunsuryang diperlukan suatujenayah.U giancommon lawpiawailiabilitijenayah biasanya dijelaskan dalam frasabahasa Latin,actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,yang bermaksud "tindakan tidak semestinya membuat seorang bersalah kecuali minda juga bersalah". Oleh itu, dalambidang kuasadenganproses sebenar,seharusnya terdapat suatuactus reusditemani oleh sesetengah peringkatmens reauntuk membentuk jenayah yang mana defendan didakwa (lihat keperluan teknikalkesetemuan). Undang-undang Jenayah biasanya tidak digunakan pada seorang yang telah bertindak dengan ketidakhadiran kesalahan mental; ini adalah peraturan umum.

Pengecualian adalah jenayahliabiliti ketat(dalam undang-undang sivil, ia biasanya tidak perlu untuk membuktikan unsur mentalsubjektifuntuk membentuk liabiliti, katakan untuk mungkirkontrakatautort,walaupun jika secara sengaja dilakukan, ini boleh menambahkan kiraankerosakandibayar untuk ganti rugiplaintifdan jugalingkungan liabiliti).

Agak secara mudah oleh itumens reamerujuk kepada unsur mental kesalahan yang menemaniactus reus.Dalam sesetengah bidang kuasa istilahmens readanactus reustelah digantikan oleh terminologi alternatif. DiAustraliacontohnya unsur-unsur semua kesalahan persekutuan kini digelarkan "unsur bersalah" (mens rea) dan "unsur fizikal" (actus reus). Terminologi ini telah digunakan supaya dapat menggantikan kekaburan istilah-istilah bahasa Latin dengan fras ringkas dan tepat.^[2]

U gian subjektif dan objektif

U gian untuk kemunculanmens reamungkin:

(a) subjektif, di mana mahkamah harus puas bahawa yang dituduh sebenarnya mempunyai elemen mental yang diperlukan hadir dalam mindanya pada waktu yang berpatutan (untuk secara bertujuan, mengetahui, tidak berhati-hati dsb) (lihatpersetujuan);

(b) objektif, di mana elemen yang perlumens reamenuduhpada yang telah dituduh, pada dasar bahawa seorang bertimbang rasaakan mempunyai elemen mental dalam keadaan sama (untuk kelalaian); atau

(c) gabungan, di mana u gian adalah subjektif dan objektif.

Mahkamahakan mempunyai sedikit kesukaran dalam menubuhkanmens reajika ada sebenarnyabukti– misalnya, jika yang dituduh membuat suatu admissibleadmission.Ini akan memuaskan suatu u giansubjektif.Tetapi sebahagian agak besar yang dituduh melakukan jenayah tidak membuat admission seperti yang dikatakan tersebut. Oleh itu, sesetengah peringkat keobjektifan harus ditanggung sebagai asas yang mana untuk menuduh komponen yang perlu. Ia sentiasa adalah bertimbang rasa untuk menganggap bahawa orang dari kecerdikan biasa menyedari keliling fizikal mereka dan dari hukum biasa sebab dan kesan (lihatpenyebaban). Oleh itu, apabila seorang merancang apa yang dilakukan dan apa yang tidak dilakukan, dia akan memahami lingkungan likely outcomes dari kelakuan yang diberikan pada skala gelincir dari "inevitable" ke "probable" ke "possible" ke "improbable". The more an outcome shades towards the "inevitable" end of the scale, the more likely it is that the accused both foresaw and desired it, and, therefore, the safer it is to impute intention. If there is clear subjective evidence that the accused didnothave foresight, but a reasonable person would have, the hybrid test may find criminal negligence. In terms of theburden of proof,the requirement is that ajurymust have a high degree of certainty before convicting. It is this reasoning that justifies the defences ofinfancy,and of lack of mental capacity under theM'Naghten Rules,and the various statutes definingmental illnessas anexcuse.Self-evidently, if there is anirrebuttable presumptionofdoli incapax- that is, that the accused did not have sufficient understanding of the nature and quality of his actions – then the requisitemens reais absent no matter what degree of probability might otherwise have been present. For these purposes, therefore, where the relevant statutes are silent and it is for the common law to form the basis of potential liability, the reasonable person must be endowed with the same intellectual and physical qualities as the accused, and the test must be whether an accused with these specific attributes would have had the requisite foresight and desire.

InEnglish law,s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides a statutory framework within whichmens reais assessed. It states:

A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,

(a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but

(b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.

Under s8(b) therefore, the jury is allowed a wide latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intention or foresight (for the purposes of recklessness) on the basis of all the evidence.

Keberkaitan motif

One of the mental components often raised in issue is that ofmotive.If the accused admits to having a motive consistent with the elements of foresight and desire, this will add to the level of probability that the actual outcome was intended (it makes the prosecution case morecredible). But if there is clear evidence that the accused had a different motive, this may decrease the probability that he or she desired the actual outcome. In such a situation, the motive may become subjective evidence that the accused did not intend, but was reckless or willfully blind.^{[perlu rujukan]}

Motive cannot be a defence. If, for example, a person breaks into a laboratory used for the testing of pharmaceuticals on animals, the question of guilt is determined by the presence of anactus reus,i.e. entry without consent and damage to property, and amens rea,i.e. intention to enter and cause the damage. That the person might have had a clearly articulated political motive to protest such testing does not affect liability. If motive has any relevance, this may be addressed in thesentencingpart of the trial, when the court considers whatpunishment,if any, is appropriate.^{[perlu rujukan]}

Niat

Recklessness (Amerika Syarikat: "willful blindness" )

In such cases, there is clear subjective evidence that the accused foresaw but did not desire the particular outcome. When the accused failed to stop the given behavior, he took the risk of causing the given loss or damage. There is always some degree of intention subsumed within recklessness. During the course of the conduct, the accused foresees that he may be putting another at risk of injury: A choice must be made at that point in time. By deciding to proceed, the accused actually intends the other to be exposed to the risk of that injury. The greater the probability of that risk maturing into the foreseen injury, the greater the degree of recklessness and, subsequently, sentence rendered. For example, at common law, an unlawful homicide committed recklessly would ordinarily constitute the crime ofvoluntary manslaughter.One committed with"extreme"or"gross"recklessness as to human life would constitute murder, sometimes defined as"depraved heart"or"abandoned and malignant heart"murder.

Criminal negligence

Here, the test is both subjective and objective. There is credible subjective evidence that the particular accused neither foresaw nor desired the particular outcome, thus potentially excluding both intention and recklessness. But areasonable personwith the same abilities and skills as the accused would have foreseen and taken precautions to prevent the loss and damage being sustained. Only a small percentage of offences are defined with thismens rearequirement. Mostlegislaturesprefer to base liability on either intention or recklessness and, faced with the need to establish recklessness as the defaultmens reafor guilt, those practising in most legal systems rely heavily on objective tests to establish the minimum requirement of foresight for recklessness.

Lihat juga

Rujukan

Catatan

^Elizabeth A. Martin, penyunting (2003),Oxford Dictionary of Law,Oxford: Oxford University Press,ISBN 0198607563
^Brent Fisse, "Howard's Criminal Law" (1990) 12-13.

Sumber

Dubber, Markus D. (2002).Criminal Law: Model Penal Code.Foundation Press.

Pautan luar

Criminal Responsibility and Intent

[1] Elizabeth A. Martin, penyunting (2003),Oxford Dictionary of Law,Oxford: Oxford University Press,ISBN 0198607563

[2] Brent Fisse, "Howard's Criminal Law" (1990) 12-13.

[1]

[2]