Mens Rea In Law

IStock

Latin’s presence in United States law vocabulary is botany secret. Terms such as certiorari, pro bono, habeas corpus, and several others. Many of these terms are easy to understand, however several are complex and work in complicated ways in a court of law. This is the beginning to a series of explaining latin law terms and showing how they apply in court. The word for this blog is mens rea.

Mens rea directly translates to “guilty mind” from Latin, and is exactly what it means in a legal setting as well as in legal texts. The overall concept of mens rea states that a crime usually consists of two elements, an illegal action (the crime) and a mental component. A mental component is determined by three factors: does the law under which the crime was committed call for a mental component, how does the crime match with the law's requirements for a mental component, and the meaning of the mental requirements. The idea that “principle actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” or the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty is not a novel idea at all and has been present for many years, mens rea embodies this idea in our modern day court.

Though it has been around for a while, mens rea is more of an abstract concept. No federal concrete definition of how it shall be determined exists in United States law, thus courts have made lawful interpretations that have become what mens rea is today in court. This means that the mental state requirement for a crime is determined by the court. In a sense similar to evaluating one's mental health is suitable to attend court, mens rea determines if one mental health matches with the crime, however they are not the same thing.

As mentioned previously, there is no concrete definition for mens rea, however there are some systems that have emerged that exist that help give definition to it. The Model Penal Code(MPC), a legal work that is meant to aid American law makers in revising their legal codes. In a section of the MPC, “levels” of how intentionally a crime was committed are outlined. 

Dual faces representing intent vs actions (dremstime)

MPC section 2.02 explained there are 5 levels of how “coupable” a crime is:

purposely; the crime done with full knowledge of its effects,

Knowingly; done knowing there is likely to be an effect to their action;

Recklessly; crime was done with disregard to any particular outcome,

Negligently; aware that some outcome is connected to their crime, and

Strict Liability; no knowledge of any effect for their action.

When the decision is handed to a court, it will likely be found that the crime was committed with some degree of mens rea.

An example of mens rea in action is the Morissette v. United States (1952). Morissette was hunting for deer in an old government bombing site. While the area was marked with signs reading "Danger–keep out–bombing range" the area was known for its deer and was often hunted. While he was unable to find any deer he found three tons of what he believed to be scrap metal, but was in fact of bomb shells. He later took it to a farm, where he flattened it with a tractor in public view and later sold it for $84, worth $1,924 today according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

When an investigation started, Morissette argued he had believed that the shells were abandoned and unwanted. This is where the mens rea component comes in. Morissette had no clue that he was committing a crime, eliminating the mens rea component from the crime, however the court believed that “That is no defense. . . . I don't think anybody can have the defense they thought the property was abandoned on another man's piece of property.” Thus, it was ruled that a mental state, or mens rea, was not necessary for this crime.

While Morissette v. United States case is a unique as the issue became national level almost immediately due to the characteristics of the crime, it still represents how mes rea works in court. I strongly believe that is this issue was not at a national level, Morissette would have never been convicted as a jury would likely vote in his favor. In summary, mens rea, in a court of law, measures how guilty someone’s mind is during their crime and although rarely heard of, I believe it is a essential concept that everyone should learn.

Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952)

Michael A, Foster. “Mens Rea: An Overview of State-of-Mind Requirements for Federal Criminal Offenses.” Congress.gov,  7 July 2021, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46836.