News1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by zarzee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm dashing out of the door right now, so I've not got time for a detailed answer (possibly later) but there's lots of stuff on the CPS website about the difference between murder and voluntary manslaughter, so that might be a useful starting point for you:
http://
http://
Actus reus means "guilty act"
mens rea means "guilty mind"
Every crime must be considered in two parts-the physical act of the crime (actus reus) and the mental intent to do the crime (mens rea)
The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged. As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.
mens rea means "guilty mind"
Every crime must be considered in two parts-the physical act of the crime (actus reus) and the mental intent to do the crime (mens rea)
The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged. As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes.
From my link:
"Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
under the Queen's Peace;
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)."
i.e. the actus reus is 'unlawfully kills' and the mens rea is "with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm"
However (as shown under the 'Voluntary Manslaughter' section) mens rea is not deemed to be present when the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility or a loss of control. Under such circumstances (where a conviction for murder could otherwise be sought and obtained) a defendant should be acquitted of murder but he could still be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
"Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
under the Queen's Peace;
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH)."
i.e. the actus reus is 'unlawfully kills' and the mens rea is "with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm"
However (as shown under the 'Voluntary Manslaughter' section) mens rea is not deemed to be present when the defendant was suffering from diminished responsibility or a loss of control. Under such circumstances (where a conviction for murder could otherwise be sought and obtained) a defendant should be acquitted of murder but he could still be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
You're welcome :-)
Suggestion for you zarzee to label your threads distinctively it is very confusing if you title your postings all the same . You are posting in the law section so that "Law" is unnecessary so perhaps "actus reus/mens rea" or "differentiate assaults" or "general and specific defences" etc.
Suggestion for you zarzee to label your threads distinctively it is very confusing if you title your postings all the same . You are posting in the law section so that "Law" is unnecessary so perhaps "actus reus/mens rea" or "differentiate assaults" or "general and specific defences" etc.
er I would do a quality check on this zarzee
here is a useful link
http://
The mens rea has definitely changed for murder has changed over the last fifty years ( in this country UK ). It USED to be - killing ( act linked with an intention to do the slightest harm, and could even be linked with an intention to do something else ( burglary, rape I think - it was all such a long time ago ) This was a category called constructive murder
In the list I have given you above there should be the case lurking where the Lord Chief Justice says - " the sooner we get to murder-you mean to do it and manslaughter you dont - the better ". This can be taken as the LCJ determined to kill the offences of constructive murder and constructive manslaughter - or at least consign them to a grave. I do not know how far he has been successful - which is the content of your question.
PS I think the mens rea for murder is intention to do GBH - ie lower than to kill but I am not sure. see above
voluntary manlaughter o god my brain hurts
all this was terribly terribly important fifty years ago as you hanged murderers ( they swung ! ) and imprisoned those guilty of manslaughter
here is a useful link
http://
The mens rea has definitely changed for murder has changed over the last fifty years ( in this country UK ). It USED to be - killing ( act linked with an intention to do the slightest harm, and could even be linked with an intention to do something else ( burglary, rape I think - it was all such a long time ago ) This was a category called constructive murder
In the list I have given you above there should be the case lurking where the Lord Chief Justice says - " the sooner we get to murder-you mean to do it and manslaughter you dont - the better ". This can be taken as the LCJ determined to kill the offences of constructive murder and constructive manslaughter - or at least consign them to a grave. I do not know how far he has been successful - which is the content of your question.
PS I think the mens rea for murder is intention to do GBH - ie lower than to kill but I am not sure. see above
voluntary manlaughter o god my brain hurts
all this was terribly terribly important fifty years ago as you hanged murderers ( they swung ! ) and imprisoned those guilty of manslaughter
I advise a quality check zz
because there is something wrong with the advice you have been given ( and I include my own )
see here http://
the mens rea it says is intention to cause GBH ( or else to murder )
that means I am right and a lot of the posts above ( which you have praised as understandable are er wrong or at least inaccurate or outdated or incomplete or defective in some other important way)
see here
http://
chapter 15 and 16 entitlled Murder and Manslaughter - oops I thought it was chap 5 - but the edition I read was 1970
You have said you knew the answer to this and was testing us and now you say you are confused
I have to say I am less confused ( as to why you way you are confused )
because there is something wrong with the advice you have been given ( and I include my own )
see here http://
the mens rea it says is intention to cause GBH ( or else to murder )
that means I am right and a lot of the posts above ( which you have praised as understandable are er wrong or at least inaccurate or outdated or incomplete or defective in some other important way)
see here
http://
chapter 15 and 16 entitlled Murder and Manslaughter - oops I thought it was chap 5 - but the edition I read was 1970
You have said you knew the answer to this and was testing us and now you say you are confused
I have to say I am less confused ( as to why you way you are confused )
Oh yeah Xeronema right on !
do a quality check on zz - no dont bother I think I know what is going on
do a quality check on the info - yup exactly right - some of the info given above is inaccurate and out of date in my opinion and should be checked by any user. In fact this task is very easy
The Irony Klaxon is now blaaaping very loudly
do a quality check on zz - no dont bother I think I know what is going on
do a quality check on the info - yup exactly right - some of the info given above is inaccurate and out of date in my opinion and should be checked by any user. In fact this task is very easy
The Irony Klaxon is now blaaaping very loudly
-- answer removed --
to methyl and peter pendant i feel you have a problem with me for what reason i do not no, if u dont know the answer or do not want to answer the q then just ignore me u should not judge the q being asked it is the answer bank after all really what did i do wrong its enough to put someone rite of EVER asking another q no need for nastiness people trying to make someone feel horrible is not a nice thing to do zz
following on to my last answer you've heard the saying ASSUMPTION IS THE ............ ! exams! foundation course who said anything about these being the reason for the questions also does there even have to be a reason for a question being asked if it is important enought for whoever to be posting the question is it relavant for you to start answering with not very nice answers? as a new member i feel i have been made to feel awful by u 2 ;(
Latest Posts
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News2 mins ago
News4 mins ago
A Late Good Morning Monday Birds!
ChatterBank23 mins ago
I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics24 mins ago
