Similarities between the Roles of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
The main similarity between these two elements of a crime is that both of them must be sufficiently proved to have been present during the alleged commission of the crime in question for a safe and legal conviction to be secured by the prosecution. If any of these elements is absent, lacking, or has not been sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt by the state, an accused is to be acquitted. Moreover, both of the play the role of ensuring that people are only convicted of offenses that they have positively committed with the full knowledge of the consequences or with a particular intent to kill, injure, maim or incapacitate. Therefore, they both play the role of upholding criminal justice.
Differences between the Roles of Mens Rea and Actus Reus
The most important difference between actus reus and mens rea is that while the former helps in establishing the physical aspect of an offense, such as an act, state of affairs, or omission, the latter helps in the establishment of the mental element of a crime, such as intention or recklessness. The other difference is that whereas the actus reus requires a voluntary act, the mens rea is deemed to be present even where a defendant’s conduct is involuntary, as long as knowledge of the consequences of their action has been proved.
In the adversarial legal system, a jurisdiction which refers to the official power of a court, body, or tribunal to make legal decisions and judgments is so important that if it is lacking, a court or tribunal is required to immediately down its tools. Should the court or tribunal proceed without either subject matter or personal jurisdiction, any decision, pronouncement, or judgment that results from that place is prima facie null and void at common law. According to Klerman (2014), the importance of having personal jurisdiction over a defendant is that it helps in minimizing litigation costs and avoiding biases of the forum to both parties. This is, however, is usually significance in civil rather than criminal cases. In cases such as those involving terrorist acts involving or by international defendants, personal jurisdiction of the United States criminal courts, for example, personal jurisdiction is important for national security purposes and to ensure that victims’ plight is addressed by national courts. It also ensures that criminals do not get away with a crime merely due to lack of personal jurisdiction over them.
Reference
Klerman, D. (2014). Rethinking personal jurisdiction. Journal of Legal Analysis, 6 (2), 245-303.
