The importance of Mens Rea in current criminal law Essay

The importance of Mens Rea in trustworthy criminal law - Essay ExampleMurder required a malicious state of mind, whereas thie actually required a felonious state of mind.Mens Rea is gener all toldy used along with the words general intention, tho this creates confusion since general intent is used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does non intend to bring about a particular result. On the other hand specific intent describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required. 1To secure a conviction, the criminal prosecution side must prove that the defendant committed the crime while in a current state of mind. The definition is specified of every crime before a person kitty be convicted as a prerequisite for Mens Rea. There are three states of mind which constitute the necessary Mens Rea for a criminal offence. These are intention, recklessness and negligence and are described below. 3Direct intent is the normal topographic point where the c onsequences of a persons actions are desired. Oblique intent comes in the situation where the consequence is known by the defendant as virtually certain, although it is not desired for its own sake, and the defendant goes ahead with his actions anyway.The law states that foresight of consequences can moreover be evidence of intention if the accused knew that those consequences would definitely happen. Therefore just a orifice of a particular occurrence is not sufficient.A court or jury in find out 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 reason simply of its being a innate(p) 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.Consequently, where foresight needs to be established a person is not to be taken as intendi ng the natural and probable consequences of his act simply because they were natural and probable, although a jury may infer that from face at all the evidence. The test is therefore subjective and a jury is to decide what the defendants intention was from considering all the evidence.The cases where they were applied areThe relationship between foresight and intention was considered by the House of Lords inHyam v DPP 1975 AC 55R v Moloney 1985 1 All ER 1025R v autograph and Shankland 1986 2 WLR 257.It is important to note that foresight of consequences is not the same as intention but only evidence of intentionR v Scalley 1995 Crim LR 504.The most recent case in this area is the finality of the House of Lords inR v Woollin 1998 4 All ER 103.The law says - To require consequence that it was the defendants purpose to bring about a particular consequence may involve placing a very heavy evidential burden on the prosecution (R v Moloney, 1985). Criminal law normally only requires pr oof of oblique intent (foresight intent) as opposed to direct intentRecklessnessRecklessness is winning an unjustified risk. In most cases, there is clear subjective evidence that the accused predicted but did not desire the particular