essay paper on distinctions between guilty mind and guilty act|Criminal Law & Procedure
Understanding the elements of a crime, particularly the distinctions between guilty mind and guilty act, are essential components for all criminal justice professionals to comprehend. Take the time to understand these concepts fully, and be prepared to use the information gained to analyze all criminal law questions throughout this course and in your professional career. It is natural to assume that either a mental state or criminal act can be easily proven; however, the old expression that “the devil is in the details” truly applies to these foundational, legal concepts. Always remember that the state must prove all elements of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and that burden of proof rests solely on the state. Your initial post must be at least 300 words in length. Support your claims with examples from the required materials and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.
Please answer the following questions below:
· Distinguish between the terms actus reus and mens rea. How are they significant in criminal law?
· To what standard of law must the defendant’s mens rea be proven in order to gain a criminal conviction? Must the state prove “what the defendant was thinking at the time of the crime” in order to prove mens rea? Why or why not?
· To what standard of law must each element of the actus reus be proven, and why?
· Which of the two legal requirements listed above (i.e., actus reus, mens rea) is more difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial, and why?
As you know, the term voir dire literally means truth. You must show a comprehensive understanding of the process of voir dire and its significance in a criminal trial. Make sure you explain whether or not a defendant is entitled to a “fair” or a perfect jury. You also need to distinguish between preemptory strikes of jurors vs. strikes for cause of potential jurors.
· Explain the purposes of opening statements in a criminal trial.
· Detail the order in which opening statements occur to the jury, and comment on whether or not this ordering seems the most fair or not.
· Provide an opinion on the significance of opening statements; are jury trials won or lost at this stage of the proceeding and why?
· Create improvements to the current system of opening statements to insure that the truth is ascertained through the trial process.
Opening statements are not opening arguments. Instead, lawyers are required to state simply what the facts of the case will show and what will be proven at trial. Examine the notion of latitude given to attorneys from some judges to argue their cases in the opening statements. Should such actions be allowed: why or why not?
Project does not have any attached files
