Mens Rea Test With Verified Correct Complete Solutions.

Mens rea - correct answer guilty mind Mens rea is defined as the - correct answer criminal intention or knowledge that an act is wrong Mens rea is a requirement in - correct answer most criminal acts indicating a key element of an offender's responsibility for committing a criminal offense If a person does not possess a guilty mind - correct answer then they cannot be guilty of a criminal offense The exception to the mens rea requirement is with - correct answer strict liability offenses in which criminal liability attaches if the act occurs and the offender's actions or inactions are the cause. Compliance crimes and many traffic offenses do not require a - correct answer culpable mental state However, for all other crimes, a judge or jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the - correct answer mens rea necessary for the offense Criminal statutes typically use language that identifies the required mental state of an offender - correct answer Words like "intentionally," "purposely," "knowingly," "should have known," "recklessly," and "negligently" often appear as required elements. The most serious offenses require - correct answer intentional or purposeful conduct Some offenses require only that the offender knew or should have known. Others may have the element of - correct answer reckless or negligent behavior An offender's psychological condition might - correct answer affect mens rea Mental impairment - correct answer a diminished mental ability resulting from an injury, disease, or other psychological cause The criminal defense of insanity relieves an offender from - correct answer criminal liability if the person is unable to understand the nature and consequences of their actions due to a mental defect or disease If they determine the offender does not possess the capability of forming the necessary mens rea, then they may - correct answer relieve or limit their criminal liability, in spite of the fact that the defendant committed the criminal act. Mental impairment or illness does not - correct answer always affect mens rea Some cases are decided based on - correct answer the extent and impact of the disability A person may have some form of mental incapacity that does not prevent him from understanding he is committing a wrong. In that case, mens rea can - correct answer still be proven and the defendant can be held criminally accountable. A reasonable mistake of fact is common in case of - correct answer theft and receiving stolen property . In order to be found guilty, offenders must know or should know that the property they possess was - correct answer obtained as a result of a theft In examining mistake of facts, courts consider: - correct answer Was the mistake reasonable? Did the offender recognize the mistake at some point? Upon the discovery of the mistake, did the offender report it to the victim or to the authorities? Did the offender make efforts to rectify the mistake upon discovery? Did the offender attempt to hide the mistake when discovered? Mistake of law - correct answer occurs when an individual either does not understand a criminal law or has a different interpretation than law enforcement and the courts One area of law in which mistake of law is recognized as a viable defense is - correct answer tax fraud Cheek v. United States - correct answer John L. Cheek, an airline pilot, stopped filing and paying federal income taxes. He was ultimately charged with multiple counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns and willfully failing to pay income taxes. He claimed that he did not meet the mens rea of willfulness because he did not believe that he had to file and pay taxes. He was involved with a tax protest group that adhered to the principle that federal taxes were unconstitutional. Cheek sincerely believed that his wages were not "income" and that he was not a "person" under the U.S. Tax Code. He was convicted at trial but managed to appeal his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. They examined his belief in relation to the requirement that his failure to pay and file was willful. They quoted an earlier decision in their opinion. In Murdoch v. United States, the Court had stated: Congress did not intend that a person, by reason of a bona fide misunderstanding as to his liability for the tax, as to his duty to make a return, or as to the adequacy of the records he maintained, should become a criminal by his mere failure to measure up to the prescribed standard of conduct (para. 11). The Court ruled in part in Cheek's favor, indicating that while it was not relevant that he believed the tax code was unconstitutional, it did matter if he truly believed that his wages were not income and that he was not a "person" under the code. If that was his genuine belief, he could not have acted "willfully." In Cheek, the Court stated: We thus hold that, in a case like this, a defendant's views about the validity of the tax statutes are irrelevant to the issue of willfulness, need not be heard by the jury, and if they are, an instruction to disregard them would be proper. For this purpose, it makes no difference whether the claims of invalidity are frivolous or have subs Ignorance of the law - correct answer meaning that an individual is not aware that an act is illegal, is not a defense for a crime. Laws are published and available, not only in official documents, but on the Internet as well; - correct answer every state has its criminal code available free online Ignorance does not negate - correct answer mens rea so long as the actor knew what his or her actions were The U.S. Supreme Court conducted a rare interpretation to the premise that ignorance of the law is not a defense in - correct answer McFadden v United States McFadden v. US - correct answer Stephen Dominick McFadden sold "bath salts," a designer psychoactive drug that causes reactions similar to those of cocaine or methamphetamines, in a series of transactions with a government informant who was working with law enforcement. At the time, the product that McFadden sold was not included in the DEA Controlled Substance Schedules. However, the criminal statute under which McFadden was charged prohibited knowingly distributing controlled substances. The Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 (the Analogue Act) identifies a category of substances substantially similar to those listed on the federally controlled substance schedules and requires that courts treat those analogues as Schedule I controlled substances. The Analogue statute allowed for prosecution for those designer drugs that were not specifically listed in the drug schedules yet had the similar properties and effects. Social ignorance - correct answer occurs when an individual is unaware of society's values Affluenza - correct answer a social condition arising from living in wealth and privilege to the extent that one is unable to distinguish right from wrong The theory that a defendant is unable to have a guilty mind because his or her social understanding is - correct answer skewed has not yet been accepted as a viable legal defense, although it may have an impact in mitigation of sentence.