Criminal liability depends on a specific state of mind or intent. True or false?

maybe you should try doing your own homework?








false?Criminal liability depends on a specific state of mind or intent. True or false?
False.Criminal liability depends on a specific state of mind or intent. True or false?
They are one in the same. I would say, if I had to choose, ';intent';. We are pulling hairs here. The question is vague on the facts. You can think something, but if you have entent to carry out, that is '; A plan of action';. Must be proven.
Criminal liability is just like going through a trial for murder... if they find you criminally liable you are convicted as guilty and therefore suffer the consequences. A specific state of mind or intent is whatever your lawyer wants to argue for/against. Civil liability is... hmm OJ Simpson; Not found criminally liable, but found civilly liable. This question is just weird.. I'm not so sure what you are looking for..?
';Sometimes';.





*Most* crimes have two elements: The ';Actus reus';, or ';bad act';, and the ';Mens rea'; or ';guilty mind';.





Murder is such a crime. If you fire a gun and it kills someone, that is the Actus reus - the 'bad act'. You are not, however, guilty of murder unless that bad act was accompanied by the necessary Mens Rea - the criminal intent to kill someone.





To be convicted you must both commit the forbidden act, and do so with a criminal intent.





*Some* crimes, however, are what is called ';Crimes of strict liability';. All you have to do is commit the Actus reus to be guilty, even if you had no criminal intent at all.





Statutory rape is, in most jurisdictions, such a crime - having sex with a minor is the Actus reus, and is all that is needed. Even if you had no criminal intent at all - you truly and reasonably believed that the minor was an adult - you are still guilty of the crime.





Richard
Please tell me you're not a Law student, and that you never want to be associated with a law firm in any way.