Шановний користувач!
Якщо Ви рахуєте, що дана робота неякісна, порушує авторські права
або ж є проблеми з її достовірністю
повідомте про це адміністратора

Actus reus

Контрольна робота

№ K-19977

ВАРІАНТ №2
ПЛАН РОБОТИ
1. Прочитайте та письмово перекладіть текст.
2. Поставте 10 запитань до тексту.
3. Складіть речення зі словами, які підкреслені в тексті. Вкажіть час та спосіб, підкресліть підмет та присудок. Перекладіть речення .
4. Підберіть статтю на юридичну тему (на рідній мові). Напишіть англійською мовою про що говориться в статті (-20 речень). Стаття додається.
5. Напишіть розповідне , питальне (загальне, спеціальне) та заперечне речення в :
Present Indefinite Tense (Active Voice), (Passive Voice). Past Indefinite Tense (Active Voice), (Passive Voice). Future Indefinite Tense (Active Voice), (Passive Voice). Напишіть переклад речень.
6. Напишіть тeмy «About Myself» та не менше 8 речень англійською мовою чому ви поступили до ОДУВС.
7.Список літератури.
8. Підпис.
Actus reus
Actus reus. Loosely, the criminal act, but the term more properly refers to the «guilty act» or the «deed of a crime». Every criminal offence has two. components: one of these is objective, the other is mental; one is the actus reus, the other is mens rea. The actus reus generally differs from crime to crime. In murder it is homicide; in burglary it is the nocturnal breaking into the dwelling of another; in uttering a forged instrument it is the act of offering as good an instrument which is actually false. In like manner the mens rea differs from crime to crime. In murder it is malice aforethought; in burglary it is the intent to commit a felony; in uttering a forged instrument it is «knowledge» that the instrument is false plus an intent to defraud. The actus reus must be causally related to the mens rea for a crime to occur. An evil intention and an unlawful action must concur in order to constitute a crime. Although it is frequently said that no mens rea is required for a strict liability offense, the actus reus alone being sufficient (Gifis). The English criminal law doctrine with regard to common law crimes uses the maxim, which reads in Latin: «Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea» (an act does not itself constitute guilt unless the mind is guilty). This maxim contains a cardinal doctrine of the English criminal law, but it is not applicable at common law to an indictment for libel, contempt of court and public nuisance. The maxim draws attention to the two essential elements of a crime: a) the physical element (the actus reus), i.e. the conduct (the so-called condition of illegality'); b) the mental element (the mens rea), i.e. the condition of mind (the so-called 'condition of culpable intentionally').
The phrase actus reus refers not only to an 'act' in the usual sense of that term; it has a much wider meaning. It involves the conduct of the accused person, its results and those relevant surrounding circumstances and consequences or states of affairs, i.e. the 'external elements', which are included into the definition of the offence and which must be proved. The actus reus comprises, therefore, all the elements of the definition of the offence, save those which concern the condition of mind of the accused. In essence it is that human conduct which if done with mens rea is contrary to the law (Curzon).
A useful working definition is that actus reus comprises all the elements of the definition of the offence except those which relate to the mental element required on the part of the accused. An actus reus generally comprises several elements. These elements take the form of conduct, surrounding circumstances and results. Any given actus reus will contain at least one of these elements.
Where an accused is charged with a result crime, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that his acts or omissions caused the prohibited consequence. The accused's conduct must be a sine qua non of the prohibited consequence. In other words, it must be established that the consequence would not have occurred as and when it did but for the accused's conduct (M.J.Allen),
Actus reus includes also the absence of any ground of justification or excuse. Mens rea is a guilty mind, the mental state accompanying a forbidden act. For an constitute a criminal offense, the act usually must be illegal and aсcompanied by a requisite mental state. Criminal offences are usually defined with reference to one of four recognized criminal states of mind that accompanies the actor's conduct who acts: (1) intentionally; (2) knowingly; (3) recklessly; and (4) grossly negligently. The mens rea may be general, i.e. a general intent to do the prohibited act, or specific, which means that a special mental element is required for a particular offence such as «assault with intent to rape» or larceny which requires a specific intent to appropriate another's property In a criminal prosecution, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the required mental state coexisted with the doing of the proscribed act. Defences of insanity, intoxication and mistake may either nullify or mitigate the existence of a specific mens rea. Crimes that are malum prohibitum often do not require any specific mens rea. These are usually crimes of strict liability (Gifis).
Essence of the phrase mens rea. The translation of the phrase as 'guilty or wicked mind' is inadequate, since mens rea may exist even though a person acts in good faith and conscience. A more accurate meaning of the phrase would be criminal intention', i.e. an intention to do an act which is an offence by statute or common law, or recklessness as to the consequences of that act - in effect the essential mental element of a crime. One more fundamental blameworthy' state of mind is negligence (Curzon).
Mens rea should not be confused with motive. Motive indicates why the person wishes a particular event to happen. It is usually irrelevant to the question of criminal responsibility. Motive may be relevant, however, as circumstantial evidence, or in inflicting punishment after conviction.
In general, according to the English criminal law, where there is no mens rea, there is no criminal offence. But it should be noted that there are two categories of cases from which the requirement of mens rea, in relation to some elements of the actus reus, may be said to be excluded: a) certain statutory offences involving so-called 'strict liability'; b) vicarious liability that is the legal responsibility of one person for the wrongful acts of another at common law in the offence of public nuisance (i. e. the causing of substantial annoyance to the subjects of the Crown, by exposing to danger, or affecting injurious in other ways, their lives, health or property) and at statute law (vicarious liability under statute following delegation). Mens rea is a technical term. It is often loosely translated as 'a guilty mind', but this translation is frequently misleading. A man may have mens rea, as is generally understood today, without any feeling of guilt on his part. He may, indeed, be acting with a perfectly clear conscience, believing his act to be morally, and even legally, right and yet be held to have mens rea. In order to properly appreciate the meaning of the term it necessary to distinguіsh between a number of different possible mental attitudes which a man may have with respect to the actus reus of the crime in question.
Mens rea is a term which has no single meaning. Every crime has its own mens rea which can be ascertained only by reference to its statutory definition or the case law. The most we can do is to state a general principle, or presumption, which governs its definitions...
The offences are so defined that only intention with respect to one or more elements is sufficient. Others are defined so as to require only negligence, or no fault at all, with respect to particular elements... (Smith and Hogan).
The French criminal law doctrine does not use the general concept of corpus delicti. It developed the concept of elements constituting a criminally punishable act such as: a) legal (that proceeds from the principle of legality), b) material (the act shall take place in reality, i.e. shall be characterized by an interference in material reality, but not be just intended or in its oral expression), c) moral (where an action is an act of the executor's will, which is connected with the attainment of a certain age, sanity as well as guilt and motive), d) an additional element is absence of justifying circumstances ( necessary self-defence, extreme necessity, action under the influence of force or coercion which the person could not with¬stand, etc.)
The contemporary German criminal law doctrine often deals with a criminal act that corresponds to the body of a crime, is unlawful and culpable; the act is human conduct, the body of a crime is the description of the-act in an abstract notion; the criminal act conforms to the body of a crime if it coincides with its abstract picture. The body of the act must be understood as the disposition of the criminal statute.

Ціна

100

грн.

Студенський каталог готових робіт © 2024 - Усі права застережено Адміністрація сайту не несе відповідальності за матеріали, які розміщені користувачами.