|
What
a defendant intended to do often affects how severely he or she will be
punished--but not always.
What makes a crime a crime?
In most cases, an act is a crime because the person committing
it intended to do something that most people would consider
wrong. This mental state is generally referred to as "Mens
rea," Latin for "guilty mind."
The "mens rea" concept
expresses a belief that people should be punished (fined or
imprisoned) only when they have acted in a way that makes them
morally blameworthy. "Mens rea" is never identified as
a distinct element of a crime. Instead, moral blame is almost
always the underlying justification for the enactment of a
criminal law. In the legal system's eyes, people who
intentionally engage in the behavior prohibited by a law have
"mens rea;" they are morally blameworthy. For example,
a murder law may prohibit "the intentional and unlawful
killing of one human being by another human being." Under
this law, one who intentionally and unlawfully kills another
person has "mens rea."
Crimes that Don't Require "Mens
Rea"
Laws that don't require "mens rea"--that
is, laws that punish people who may be morally innocent--are
called "strict liability laws." The usual
justification for a strict liability law is that the social
benefits of stringent enforcement outweigh the harm of punishing
a person who may be morally blameless. Examples of strict
liability laws include:
- "Statutory rape" laws
which in some states make it illegal to have sexual
intercourse with a minor, even if the defendant honestly and
reasonably believed that the sexual partner was old enough
to consent legally to sexual intercourse.
- "Sale of alcohol to
minors" laws that in many states punish store clerks
who sell alcohol to minors even if the clerks reasonably
believe that the minors are old enough to buy liquor.
Strict liability laws like these punish
defendants who make honest mistakes and therefore may be morally
innocent. Because the legal consequences of innocent mistakes
can be so great in certain circumstances, people who find
themselves in situations governed by strict liability rules need
to take special precautions before acting.
When a Mistake Will Get a Defendant
Off the Hook
People who unintentionally engage
in illegal conduct may be morally innocent; this is known as
making a "mistake of fact." Someone who breaks the law
because he or she honestly misperceives reality lacks "mens
rea" and should not be charged with or convicted of a
crime. For example, if Paul Smith hits Jonas Sack because he
reasonably but mistakenly thought Sack was about to hit him,
Smith would have labored under a mistake of fact--and would not
have mens rea. It is this same principle that underlies the
traditional insanity defense--the defendant so misperceived
reality that her actions were caused by a mental disease or
defect rather than mens rea.
While a "mistake of fact" can
negate mens rea, a "mistake of law" usually cannot.
People who intentionally commit illegal acts are almost always
guilty, even if they honestly don't realize that what they are
doing is illegal. For example, if Jo sells cocaine in the honest
but mistaken belief that it is sugar, Jo has made a mistake of
fact and may lack mens rea. However, if Jo sells cocaine in the
honest but mistaken belief that it is legal to do so, Jo is
considered morally blameworthy. Perhaps the best explanation for
the difference is that if a "mistake of law" allowed
people to escape punishment, the legal system would be
encouraging people to remain ignorant of legal rules.
When Carelessness Amounts to Criminal
Behavior
"Ordinary" carelessness is not a
crime. For example, negligent drivers are not usually criminally
prosecuted, though they may have to pay civil damages to those
harmed by their negligence. However, more-than-ordinary
carelessness can demonstrate "mens rea." Common terms
for morally blameworthy carelessness are
"recklessness" and "criminal negligence."
Unfortunately, no clear line separates non-criminal negligence
from recklessness and criminal negligence. In general,
carelessness can amount to a crime when a person
"recklessly disregards a substantial and unjustifiable
risk." Indefinite language like that cannot always
rationally draw a line between ordinary and criminal
carelessness. Police officers and prosecutors have to make the
initial decisions about whether to charge a careless person with
a crime. At that point, it's up to judges and juries to evaluate
a person's conduct according to community standards and decide
whether the carelessness is serious enough to demonstrate "mens
rea."
What "Knowing" or
"Knowingly" Means
Many laws punish only violators who
"knowingly" engage in illegal conduct. The
"knowingly" requirement indicates that a crime
involves "mens rea," and prevents people who make
innocent mistakes from being convicted of crimes. Since most
crimes require mens rea anyway, the word knowingly is often
redundant. What a person has to "know" to be guilty of
a crime depends on the behavior that a law makes illegal. For
example:
- A drug law makes it illegal for a
person to "knowingly" import an illegal drug
(often referred to as a "controlled substance")
into the United States. To convict a defendant of this
crime, the prosecution would have to prove that a defendant
knew that what he brought into the United States was an
illegal drug.
- Another drug law makes it illegal to
furnish drug paraphernalia with "knowledge" that
it will be used to cultivate or ingest an illegal drug. To
convict a defendant of this crime, the prosecution would
have to prove that a defendant who sold or supplied drug
paraphernalia knew about the improper purposes to which the
paraphernalia would be put.
- A perjury law makes it illegal for a
person to testify to any material matter which she or he
"knows" to be false. To prove perjury, the
prosecution would have to prove that the defendant knew at
the time she testified that her testimony was false.
- A school safety law makes it illegal
for a person to "knowingly possess a firearm in a
school zone." To prove a violation of this law, the
prosecution would have to prove both that the defendant knew
that he was carrying a gun and that he was in a school zone.
"Specific Intent" Crimes
"Specific intent" laws
require the government to do more than show that a defendant
acted "knowingly." Specific intent laws require the
government to prove that a defendant had a particular purpose in
mind when engaging in illegal conduct. Each specific intent law
identifies the particular purpose that the government has to
prove. For example, many theft laws require the government to
prove that a defendant took property "with the intent to
permanently deprive a person of the property." To convict a
defendant of theft, the government has to prove that a thief's
plan was to forever part a victim from his or her property. For
example, a culprit who drives off in another's car without
permission and returns it a few hours later might be convicted
only of "joyriding." However, the same culprit who
drives off in another's car without permission and takes it
across the country probably demonstrates a specific intent to
permanently deprive the owner of the car and would be guilty of
the more serious crime of car theft.
Crimes Requiring "Malicious"
Behavior
In everyday usage people often use the
term "malicious" to mean "spiteful" or
"wicked." In most criminal statutes, however,
"maliciously" is simply synonymous with
"intentionally" and "knowingly." As a
result, the term "maliciously" usually adds nothing to
the general "mens rea" requirement. As used in murder
statutes, however, the term "malice" is often
interpreted as meaning the defendant had a
"man-endangering" state of mind" when the act was
committed, which is enough to justify at least a second degree
murder charge.
Crimes Requiring "Willful"
Behavior
As with "maliciously," the term
"willfully" usually adds nothing to the general "mens
rea" requirement. In most statutes, to commit an illegal
act "willfully" is simply to commit it intentionally.
For example, consider these statutes:
- "It is unlawful to willfully
disturb another person by loud and unreasonable noise."
- "Anyone who willfully
encourages another to commit suicide is guilty of a
felony."
Each of these statutes merely requires
the government to show that a person intentionally committed the
act made illegal by the statute.
Less commonly, the term
"willfully" in a statute has been interpreted to
require the government to prove not only that a person acted
intentionally, but also that the person intended to break the
law. (This is an unusual instance in which "ignorance of
the law" actually is an excuse!) For example, in one case a
federal law made it illegal to willfully bring in to the country
more than $10,000 in cash without declaring it to customs
officials. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that to convict a
person of violating this law, the government had to prove that
the person knew the law's requirements. (Ratzlaf v. U.S.,
510 U.S. 135 (1994).) This more exacting interpretation of
"willfully" preserves the "mens rea"
foundation of criminal law where, as in the "declaring
cash" law, many people might be morally innocent yet break
the law.
Crimes Requiring "Felonious"
Behavior
The term "felonious" is
sometimes included in a law when prohibited conduct can in some
circumstances be interpreted as a misdemeanor or as a felony.
For example, "felonious assault" in a statute would
refer to those types of assault--such as "assault with a
deadly weapon" or "assault with intent to commit great
bodily injury"--that are typically treated as felonies.
The Role of "Motive" in
Criminal Law
"Motive" generally refers to the
reason behind an illegal act. For example, a person's need to
raise money quickly to pay off a bookie may be the motive for a
robbery; revenge for a personal affront may be the motive for a
physical attack. Prosecutors often offer motive evidence as
circumstantial evidence that a defendant acted intentionally or
knowingly. The reason is that like most people, judges and
jurors believe in "cause and effect." They are more
likely to believe that a defendant had "mens rea" if
they know that the defendant had a motive to commit an illegal
act. While prosecutors frequently do offer "motive"
evidence, they are not required to do so. By the same token,
defendants may offer evidence showing that they had no motive to
commit a crime, and then argue that the lack of a motive
demonstrates reasonable doubt of guilt.
|
