Crime, Legal Defense, Elements of a Crime free essay sample

Elements of a Crime and how the elements of a crime apply to the overall criminal procedure process? The three elements of crime are actus reus, mens rea, and the relationship between the two. Actus reus is commission or omission that is illegal. The act must be voluntary and must break a criminal statue. Mens rea is the guilty state of mind. Accidently switching briefcases with someone at an airport does not possess mens rea. (Jon’a F. Meyer, Diana R. Grant, 2003) The relationship of the two must be present for a crime to be committed. I have to rob a bank and be in the guilty state of mind as a do it to be guilty. There are three elements to a crime: 1. actus reus- a guilty act. 2. mens rea- intent to commit a guilt act 3. concurrence- connection of actus reus and mens rea. The overall criminal procedure relies on the elements consisting of a crime. Without these elements combined there is no crime committed, and people would not be punished. The elements of a crime allow us to have a better understanding of the person who commits certain crimes. What recommendations would you make to better define/improve understanding of elements of a crime? With the elements of a crime being so short there is little that needs to be done in order to improve the understanding amongst society. The majority of the knowledge that society has about the law us from everyday living and hearsay down the grapevine. With this type of communication the vital parts of the message can be lost and misinterpreted. A public notice of the definitions of the elements is a good way to prevent that from happening as much and help society gather a better understanding of the elements that make a crime. What are the various legal defenses which are used? Infancy—she or he is too young (typically younger than seven years of age) to be able to form the mens rea necessary to commit a criminal act. Insanity—his or her insanity at the time of a crime meant he or she could not rationally form mens rea to commit a criminal act. Intoxication—his or her involuntary intoxication made it impossible for him/her to rationally form mens rea to commit a criminal act. Self-defense—his or her actions were meant to protect him- or herself from death or serious bodily harm. Prevention of a violent felony—she or he was protecting others or preventing a violent felony. Coercion/duress—his or her actions were in response to a rational fear of immediate death or serious bodily injury. Necessity—his or her actions were necessary to prevent a larger evil. Entrapment—the idea and motivations for committing the crime were planted by a government agent. Syndromes—the defendant was significantly affected by a psychological syndrome that diminished his or her ability to rationally form mens rea to commit a criminal act. Mistake of fact—the acts arose from an honest and reasonable mistake, such as accidentally picking up someone else’s umbrella instead of one’s own. Meyer Grant, 2003, p. 33). How does each of these defenses apply when in court and the overall criminal procedure? Infancy defense was intended for children between the ages of seven and fourteen who might have been accused of a crime in which the courts would decide on a case-by-case basis if the child knew right from wrong. If certified, the cou rts could not prosecute the accused for their acts, no matter how severe. Insanity would only apply if the defendant had been legally insane at the time of the crime. In this case the accused could be determined as incapable of knowing what they were doing was wrong. â€Å"To be a valid defense, the defendant must have been legally insane at the time of the crime, and insanity differs from the medical definition of mental illness in that insanity cannot apply when defendants understand what they are doing and know what they were doing is wrong. So, it is possible for defendants who suffer from serious mental illnesses to be tried and convicted for committing crimes, even crimes committed during episodes of their mental illnesses. This illustrates the fact that â€Å"insanity† is a legal concept, not a psychological/medical one. † (Meyer Grant, 2003, p. 60). Intoxication defense could stand if it is proven the accused was â€Å"slipped a Mickey†. Being in an involuntary intoxicated state when committing a crime should be a valid excused for their criminal actions to be dismissed. The Self-defense victim of an actual or apparent deadly attack may kill another person if it is reasonably necessary to use such force to protect oneself from death or serious bodily harm. So, if an attacker tries to kill you, and you cannot get away, you are generally allowed to engage in whatever self-defense is necessary. Self-defense differs from other defenses to crime in that the defendant who claims self-defense is actually asserting that she or he acted appropriately. (Meyer Grant, 2003, p. 38). Prevention of a violent felony is that the defense of others is permissible if the defendant believes that force is necessary to protect others or to prevent a violent felony. This defense is also known as defense of others. Even if the perpetrator of the original crime is injured by the person who sought to prevent the violent felony, this defense can still protect the good Samaritans from prosecution. (Meyer Grant, 2003, p. 39). Coercion or duress is usually a defense to a crime because it is presumed that the Defendant’s crimes resulted from fear of death or serious bodily injury. In order to be a valid defense, the defendant must have faced immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. (Meyer Grant, 2003, p. 39). Necessity is a justification when a crime is committed to prevent a greater evil. This seldom-used defense requires four elements to be effective. First, the crime must be committed in order to prevent a significant and imminent evil (e. g. , one’s own death). Second, the defendant must not have available to him or her a reasonable legal alternative (e. g. , there is no other shelter nearby). Third, the criminal act must not be disproportionate to the evil it sought to prevent (e. g. , merely breaking into a home seems justifiable if it is done to save one’s life). Finally, the defendant must have acted with good faith, believing that the act was necessary to prevent the evil. Meyer Grant, 2003, p. 40). â€Å"Entrapment is not a valid defense unless it was a government agent who planted the idea in someone’s mind; being persuaded by other private citizens to commit an illegal act is not a legal defense. † (Meyer Grant, 2003, p. 41). Psychological syndromes have been introduced at trial as legal defenses. However, it is important to re cognize that these syndromes were created by psychologists, researchers, physicians, and other non-legal personnel, but they have been employed by defendants and attorneys to try to excuse criminal behavior. Even when syndromes are not successful in excusing crime, they are sometimes used to mitigate sentences. (Meyer Grant, 2003, p. 43). Those who plead mistake of fact argue that they committed an act based on an honest and reasonable misunderstanding of the facts surrounding an offense. It is relatively common for laws to state that defendants must have â€Å"knowingly† committed an offense. (Meyer Grant, 2003, p. 44). How can we improve that accurate legal defenses are being used in the criminal court system? I would have to say these defenses were intended to protect the innocent, yet attorneys will attempt to manipulate the system to favor the accused. The only way I see to improve the system would be to reassess and re-validate the intent. This would hopefully close any and all loop holes of the legal defenses rights of the accused. Definition of Crime The definition of crime is â€Å"An act that subjects the doer to legal punishment; the commission or omission of an act specifically forbidden or enjoined by public law†. (Jon’a F. Meyer, Diana R. Grant, 2003). If the act is against the law and a punishment has already been assigned to the act than it is a crime. If there is not a law against an action than it cannot be a crime. How would you describe the overall criminal process after a crime has been committed? What would happen if one of these steps of the process were removed? Explain The accused person or also called a defendant, is charged with an offense due to a law enforcement officer issuing a citation or a citizen complaint who believes an offense has been committed against property or to their person. An arrest will usually occur at the scene of the crime and be based on a warrant or a sworn statement. The arrest will be based on probable cause and/or have reason to believe that an offense has been committed and done so by the defendant. If a defendant is not automatically arrested he or she will be issued a summons to appear in court. If the defendant does not show up in court when instructed to do so according to the summons, a warrant can be issued for their arrest if there is proof that the summons was delivered. The defendant will be advised of their rights at the court appearance and a bail amount is reviewed. Once in court the defendant will be advised of their right to have an attorney present. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney then they have the option of having a public defender assigned to them. The case is then reviewed by the prosecutor to determine if the case has merit and sufficient evidence for a conviction. The case has a chance of being downgraded if there is insufficient evidence. Next the prosecutor and defendant along with their attorney have a chance to negotiate a plea bargain. If the defendant agrees then they must sign agreeing to that plea bargain. The judge has final say in the plea bargain. If the case goes to trial the defendant may have a chance to choose a judge to decide the outcome or a jury. The defendant will either be found guilty or not guilty. If any of these steps are removed the defendant does not get a fair fighting chance. In America you are innocent until proven guilty and by not allowing one of these steps to occur you are not given a chance to prove your innocence.