Distinguish between the terms actus reus and mens rea. How are they significant in criminal law?
To what standard of law must the defendant’s mens rea be proven in order to gain a criminal conviction? Must the state prove “what the defendant was thinking at the time of the crime” in order to prove mens rea? Why or why not?
To what standard of law must each element of the actus reus be proven, and why?
Which of the two legal requirements listed above (i.e., actus reus and mens rea) is more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial, and why?
A crime is a moral wrong that is perpetrated against the entire society. It disrupts the calm, and some crimes can provoke mass panic. Every crime has four main components: a person (expressed by the words “whoever,” “person,” or “man”), intention to harm (mens rea or guilty mind), a willed act (or omission), or the results of a willed act or omission (actus reus). And Injury. There is not much difference between the mens rea and actus reus as these both are the essential factors of establishing a crime. The only difference between the two is that mens rea is a mental element and actus reus is a physical element. In most criminal offenses, the mens rea occurs before actus reus as the person should have an intention or knowledge of what will result from his actions.
tecting Against Birth Defects”, discussed in class, the company had policies that prohibited women without proof of infertility from working with chemicals associated with birth defects. I disagree with the policy of this company because it discriminates on the basis of gender. Although the risks associated with the children of women working around these chemicals was higher, the offspring’s of men also faced similar risks. It is unfair to have this policy in place only for women. A fair policy would have been demanding proof of infertility irrespective of gender. The company will need to protect itself from future litigations if a child was born with defects. Although the company could have clearly stated the risks involved to all employees regarding birth defects, it does not protect the company against future lawsuits by the offspring’s of these workers.
Discrimination against gender or race in any culture should be legally prohibited regardless of country or culture. When it comes to customer preference, as seen in the second case where the less qualified man was considered to be hired over the more qualified woman, the question for the company lies in who will create greater value for the shareholders? In Japanese culture, women are not typically seen as sales personnel and this could have led to a loss in sales for the company. I believe that since this isn’t a common occurrence, it wouldn’t be fair for the qualified woman to lose the opportunity for the job just due to her gender. If customers did in fact not respond well to the fact that she was a woman and the company lost sales due to this, it would be fair for the company to hire the man. In this case, I would suggest hiring both the candidates on a trial bases and the better performer should get the job. The woman would definitely have to overcome more hurdles than the man, but for the company, the bottom line would matter. A company’s duty is to its shareholders, but it cannot ignore other stakeholders in the process. I also believe that perceptions and customers preferences evolve, and hiring a woman might lead to a short term loss, but if the woman is given enough time to prove herself and change customer preferences, this could lead to the long term benefits of having a more qualified employee.
I do believe customer preferences should be considered in the hiring practice but only if it has proven effects on the economic value generated by the decision. Discrimination based on gender, race, color, sex or national origin should not be permitted anywhere in the world. Education is the key to changing customer preferences, perceptions and culture to enable people all around the world to treat every human equally. This starts with a change in mindset and I believe this will eventually be instilled in the generations to come. As Sheryl Sandberg famously said “In the future, there will be no female leaders. There will just be leaders.”