crimes that do not require mens rea are known as non compos mentis.
crimes that do not require mens rea are known as non compos mentis.
crimes that do not require mens rea are known as?
non compos mentis
the standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the latin phrase "actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". in jurisdictions with due process, there must be both "actus reus" ("guilty act") and "mens rea" for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). as a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. exceptions are known as strict liability crimes.
mens rea
strictly speaking, however, it could be argued that intoxication is not a defense, but a denial of "mens rea"; the main difference being that a defense accepts the "mens rea" and "actus reus" of an offence are present. with intoxication, there is no acceptance of the "mens rea" of the offence. for offences of basic intent, the act itself is criminalised. all that is needed is the intent to do the act. it can therefore be inferred that there is such intent relatively easily; when intoxicated one is not an automaton - there is still control of one's actions. therefore, intoxication will rarely (if ever) deny the "mens rea" of crimes of basic intent. with specific intent, the character of the act is criminalised, for the act itself is often objectively innocent. appropriation of an item is perfectly innocent, yet when one appropriates with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it, there is a theft. this is much more difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, for an intoxicated person may exercise control over his actions but will often lack an understanding of what is being done - without this understanding the necessary intent cannot be proven. therefore, whilst it is tempting to think of intoxication as a defense, it is more accurate to see it as a denial of the "mens rea" of an offence - where the "mens rea" or "actus reus" is not proven, there is no need for defenses.
criminal defenses