In this post (from the pit thread concerning the sadly absurd proposal in Virginia to legislate mandatory reporting of miscarriages), Bricker stated:
Now I am confused. Wouldn’t ‘ignorance of the law’ correspond to the absence of a mens rea? Yet, as we’ve all heard, “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. What am I missing?
I think the key is that you intended to do whatever it was that you did, NOT that you intended to do something illegal.
IANAL, but it is my understanding that mens rea is present if the person merely has the intent to commit the act. The difference is between doing something on purpose, and doing it accidentally, not necessarily in knowing it was wrong. This Wikipedia article does a good job of explaining it.
The two concepts are different.
Mens rea is the required mental state for a crime. For homicide, it is the intent to kill. For larceny, the intent to steal (both examples are simplified). So ignorance of the law is usually no defense because knowing that one if commiting a crime is not part of the mens rea requirement.
“I didn’t know stealing was a crime,” is no defense, but “I thought the umbrella was mine, and did not intent to take yours,” is.
Similarly, “I didn’t know that homicide was a crime,” is no defense, but “I thought he was already dead,” is. Although, the defendant might be guilty of some other crimes.
Wow! A triple-post of uniformly helpful replies. Thanks.
So if I’m driving along at 40 miles an hour on a road that appears to be wide enough, straight enough, and empty enough to support that speed and a cop pulls me over and tells me that the speed limit is 30, am I not guilty because I was not deliberately speeding? Or is the presence of a speed limit sign, even if I hadn’t seen it, enough to establish that I * should * have had a * mens rea*?
This actually happened and I was actually annoyed that I got pulled over for speeding, because I felt that if I were going to be punished, I should at least have had the chance to enjoy doing wrong. Never got to argue that in court, though, because they never sent me a court date.
If I’m understanding it correctly, it’s the intent to commit the act that gives you mens rea. The act in that case is not “speeding”, the act is “driving 40”. 40 being over the speed limit makes that act illegal.
You might have a better argument against it if your spedometer was wonky, and thus while you thought you were going 30, you were actually going 40. In that case, you didn’t intend to go 40.
No, because intent is not an element of the crime of speeding. The crime is defined by the act, not by the intent.
Not all crimes have an element of intent in their definition. But crimes that do have an element intent in their definition are generally more serious. For example, possession of a controlled substance with intent to resell is more serious that simple possession. Assault with intent to do bodily harm is more serious than simple assault.
By more serious, I mean the crime carries a stiffer penalty.
Well, if I’m understanding it correctly, the act is speeding. Because it’s perfectly possible to drive at 40mph with a clear conscience if the road conditions permit AND you’re unaware of the speed limit. So there’s no opportunity for a “guilty mind”.
Certain lesser offenses that are more regulatory than criminal and carry low penalties are considered “strict liability” or “public welfare” offenses and don’t require a mens rea, or no mens rea to at one or more of the elements. A mistake of fact will not excuse the misconduct. Speeding is generally considered a strict liability offense.
To follow on to pravnik, for example in my jurisdiction simple speeding is not a “crime”, it’s an “administrative infraction” a.k.a. regulatory violation. Your punishment is a fine or the suspension of your driving license, not jail.
Mens Rea is really only relevant with regard to criminal acts. That’s why you can have strict liability, vicarious liability, and so on, in civil tort cases - you can be negligent without intending to be so. Criminal is a very different kettle of fish.