Mens rea

In our legal system, which governs through crime, in order to protect innocent citizens, a strong and defined mens rea requirement is essential in determining one’s culpability. The definition of mens rea varies by source, however, it is essentially a mind state one has when performing a wrong or criminal behavior. The four main mens rea requirements consist of intent, no knowledge, recklessness, or negligence, the latter as most arguably the lesser evil. Both sides of the political aisle have recognized the need for change in punishment and the criminal justice system, however, both sides have different reasoning and concerns. Overall, an argument for a default mens rea principle emerges to be the strongest idea in tackling part of this issue, with few exceptions for white collar crime and sex crimes committed against children.

Gideon Yaffe defines the mens rea principle as the “claim that a conviction is unjustified when the offender lacks mens rea” (Yaffe, 397). Watered down, this principle claims that an individual can only be justly convicted if he or she possess a worthy mens rea status. Prior to 2017, a proposed criminal justice reform bill was struck down in Congress due to its mens rea reform provision. The assumption behind this provision is that the requirement of possessing mens rea when committing a crime would make for work for prosecutors in order to prove a culpable mindset. As a result, conviction rates would most definitively decrease, while acquittals would increase- a concern of conservative counterparts in Congress. Yaffe illustrates the righteousness in this provision as it would lead to the acquittal of many innocent individuals. It is better to make standards and procedures arduous if it leads to maintaining liberty for the innocent. Yaffe’s main exception to a default mens rea principle belongs to sexual assault crimes against children. In this class of crimes, strict liability is the superior route. Strict liability dominates mens rea in this instance as an offender could not use lack of knowledge concerning a victim’s age as an excuse. In theory, the state would exacerbate the crime by doing nothing in this case. Libel belongs to this class of crimes as well, and excluding those particular crimes, the state should adopt a default mens rea provision in criminal statutes.

Marcia Baron’s call against negligence is another part of the need for an overarching criminal justice reform. There needs to be certain elements present in order to legally and permissibly criminalize an action. Negligence is one of the possible mind sets one can possess for a culpable mens rea, yet Baron argues it should not count. If one is negligent, they are unaware there is a risk at hand and believes an action to be justified, therefore, it is not a choice to act recklessly. It is wrong to assume that acting negligently suffices for criminal liability as it excludes the need for an actus reus. Additionally, Baron argues negligence cannot be a level of mens rea as it would assume negligence to be a mental state. An individual cannot be aware that they are unaware of a risk in a particular situation. Negligence does not provide an inculpatory factor, which is a critical factor is determining culpability and permissibility in criminalizing behaviors or actions.