WK1DiscLGriggs
Crime has been a huge concern for most cities. When a person committed a crime, he or she demonstrates the three elements of the crime namely concurrence, Actus reus (conduct) and Mens rea (mental health. Once all of this three elements were evident in a person’s behavioral pattern there is a big possibility that the person may commit crime anytime. It is detrimental for everyone to keep a close watch at all times for such individuals who are demonstrating these elements. These three elements are also paramount in determining the gravity and nature of the crime depending on causation.
Chicago Crime News
One of the examples of current news event featuring a crime demonstrating the three elements can be found in an incident in one of the key cities in the United States. On March 12, 2012 a man named Charles Randle, 41 years old was sentenced to 45 years in prison by Judge Carol A. Kipperman (Fitzpatrick, Lauren. March 12, 2012). Although the crime was committed on April 5, 2009 Randle just received his sentence recently. What happened on that day according to reports is that while in his car, Randle shot his wife in the chest while as he was supposedly taking her to church that day. After shooting his wife, Randle stashed his wife’s body in the car trunk and left on the South side of Chicago. In Randle’s testimonies, he claimed that what happened was an accident, but the court has proven otherwise. In this case about Charles Randle, the three elements of the crime were strongly demonstrated.
One is that if the argument about unintentionally killing Smith (Randle’s wife) why would he put hid the body and left it somewhere else? This is clearly an element of “Mens rea”, wherein the perpetrator has a clear intent and in his clear state of mind when he committed the crime. If he wasn’t there is a possibility that he might come to his senses to surrender and admit the crime right then and there. The involuntary commitment to a crime might suggest the absence of “Mens rea”, but in Randle’s case his succeeding actions after the crime proved that he also demonstrated the said element of the crime. The next element is conduct or “Actus reus”, it wouldn’t be a crime if there were no act initiated by the criminal, and thinking about committing a crime in your thoughts does render conviction. If the thought was translated into an act, that is where the element of “Actus reus” comes in the picture and in Randle’s case, there were an act in proven by evidence. The third element of the crime present in this case is concurrence, the fact that the previous elements of the crime were established, therefore concurrence is automatically evident, and once the two elements were simultaneously initiated it already constitutes concurrence.
The other element present in Randle’s case which does not belong in the previous three is “causation”. This refers to the law itself, crime is normally acted upon by means of harming another individual for multiple reasons. If there were harm done inflicting serious injury or loss of life to the victim it is then a proof of causation. In Charles Randle murder case there is no question that he also demonstrated the element of “causation” given that the victim died in the incident.
Conclusion
In the court of law a crime has to be established in a way that all elements constituting crime should be present. After the evidence and testimonies were evaluated and witnesses took the witness stand, it is the proof that will lead to prosecution and eventually conviction. At certain point when a criminal was able to hide one more of those elements of the crime, it is likely that the accused would eventually get an acquittal. Furthermore, a convicted individual can always prove his innocence by always stating the truth and nothing but the truth.
References
Fitzpatrick, Lauren. (March 12, 2012) Man gets 45 years for killing Bellwood woman. Web Retrieved March 13, 2012 from http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/11246710-418/man-gets-45-years-for-killing-bellwood-woman.html
