Define The Following Three Italicized Terms And Then Explain

Define The Following Three Italicized Terms And Then Exp

1. Define the following three italicized terms and then explain how mens rea and actus reus can be both related to and separate from the corpus delicti.

2. Describe cultural defense. Do you think cultural defenses should be available? If so, under what circumstances should they be used? If not, why not?

3. Research pharmacist Jerome Ersland's murder case. Conduct online research to learn more about the case. Then write a short description of words of the case and the verdict. Then include what you would have decided in this case if you were a jury member.

4. Use the internet to locate websites containing state criminal codes. Choose the state you live in and locate the statutes pertaining to the FBI's eight major crimes. (Remember that the terminology may be different. Whereas the FBI uses the term rape, for example, the state you've selected may use sexual assault.) After studying the statutes, describe the corpus delicti of each major offense (list the elements of each offense that a prosecutor must prove in court to obtain a conviction). Now choose a second state, preferably from a different geographic region of the country. Again, list the elements of each major offense. Compare the way in which those elements are described with the terminology used by the first state you chose. What differences, if any, exist? Submit your findings.

Paper For Above instruction

The criminal justice system relies heavily on specific legal principles and definitions to ensure justice is accurately administered. Among these foundational concepts are the terms mens rea, actus reus, and corpus delicti. Understanding these terms and their interrelations is essential for grasping how criminal liability is established in law.

Definitions of Key Legal Terms

Mens rea refers to the mental state or intent of a person at the time of committing a crime. It is often described as the "guilty mind" and is a necessary element in proving criminal liability for many offenses. For example, intentionally causing harm demonstrates a different mens rea than accidental harm. Actus reus, on the other hand, pertains to the actual conduct or act that constitutes a crime. It is the physical act or unlawful omission that, together with mens rea, forms the basis of criminal liability.

Corpus delicti, Latin for "body of the crime," signifies the factual basis or underlying proof that a crime has occurred. It involves proof that a certain injury or loss has happened as a result of criminal activity. For instance, the physical body in homicide cases constitutes part of the corpus delicti, but proof also requires evidence that death was caused unlawfully by criminal acts.

Relationship Between Mens Rea, Actus Reus, and Corpus Delicti

Mens rea and actus reus are intertwined in the establishment of criminal liability. Typically, both elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction. They are related because the mental intent (mens rea) and physical act (actus reus) together demonstrate the commission of a crime. In contrast, corpus delicti involves proving that a crime has occurred, often focusing on factual evidence such as a victim’s injuries or property loss.

While mens rea and actus reus are essential components in the act of committing a crime, they can sometimes be considered separately from corpus delicti. For example, in certain cases, corpus delicti may be proved without establishing mens rea; this is common in strict liability offenses where intent is not necessary. Conversely, proving corpus delicti without mens rea may sometimes suffice to establish that a wrongful act occurred, but full criminal liability generally requires evidence of both mental state and action.

Cultural Defense and Its Implications

The cultural defense is a legal argument where defendants claim that their actions should be excused or mitigated due to cultural or societal norms that differ from mainstream standards. It recognizes that behaviors considered criminal in one culture may be deemed acceptable or understandable in another. Supporters argue that cultural defenses are necessary to ensure fairness and account for cultural diversity, while opponents contend they may undermine the rule of law and accountability.

In my opinion, cultural defenses should be available under specific circumstances, primarily when cultural influences directly impact the defendant's understanding of their actions or diminish culpability. For instance, if a defendant committed a crime due to deeply ingrained cultural beliefs that negate malicious intent, the court should consider such context. However, cultural defenses should not be used to justify criminal acts that violate fundamental rights or cause serious harm, especially when such acts are condemned universally, such as violence or abuse.

Case Study: Jerome Ersland's Murder Case

The case of Jerome Ersland involves the murder of a young man during a robbery in Oklahoma. Ersland, a pharmacist, shot an armed suspect multiple times, resulting in the victim’s death. The prosecution argued that Ersland’s actions were excessive and constituted murder, while the defense claimed it was self-defense. The court found Ersland guilty of first-degree murder due to the premeditated nature of the shooting. The verdict reflected the jury’s view that Ersland’s use of deadly force was unjustified under the circumstances.

If I were a juror in this case, I would have considered whether Ersland had a reasonable belief that his life or others’ lives were in imminent danger. Given the facts, I might lean toward a conviction of manslaughter if I believed his actions exceeded the boundaries of lawful self-defense but did not warrant a murder conviction. However, the evidence of premeditation strongly supports the verdict of first-degree murder.

Analysis of States’ Criminal Codes: The FBI’s Eight Major Crimes

Locating the criminal statutes of my state (California), I examined the laws pertaining to the FBI’s major crimes: criminal homicide, rape (now sexual assault), robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Each state's statutes clearly specify the elements that constitute each offense, which courts must prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

For example, in California, the crime of murder (California Penal Code §187) requires the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. The elements include: the killing was unlawful, perpetrated by a human, and with intent or reckless disregard for life. Sexual assault (California Penal Code §261) involves unlawful sexual contact obtained through force, violence, or threats, with specific consent requirements. Robbery involves the taking of property from another by force or fear (California Penal Code §211).

In contrast, in Texas, the terminology slightly varies, with the statutes referring to homicide, sexual assault, and robbery, but the elements are similar. For instance, in Texas, homicide requires the killing of a human being intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly. Sexual assault involves penetration without consent, with the elements including the lack of consent, force, or threat. While the core elements match those of California, the specific legal language and statutory classifications differ, reflecting regional legislative preferences.

This comparison illustrates that while the underlying concepts remain consistent across states, the terminology and statutory language may vary, highlighting the importance of understanding local laws in criminal proceedings.

Conclusion

Understanding the interplay between mens rea, actus reus, and corpus delicti provides a comprehensive view of how criminal liability is established and prosecuted. The debate over cultural defense continues to evoke complex legal and ethical discussions, balancing respect for cultural diversity with the need for universal standards of justice. Examining specific cases, such as Jerome Ersland's, underscores the significance of judicial interpretation and the importance of evidence in criminal trials. Additionally, variations in state statutes emphasize the necessity for legal practitioners to be familiar with local criminal codes and terminology to effectively advocate and interpret the law.

References

Related Assignments