Punishment Responsibility

Men’s rea generally refers to the mental perception of crime and engages the accused person’s knowledge and intention in committing them the said offense. This law element delves into the accused’s knowledge and intention and must be proved in criminal law to hold the suspect liable for the offense. Morality is, however, relative, and it generally denotes what is right or wrong and bad or good, and sometimes this depends on the society where one comes from. It is at the lawyers’ discretion to prove that the accused was in the right state of mind when the alleged offense was committed.

A guilty mind to commit a crime is an essential factor for consideration, and the prosecution must prove this failed to which one is acquitted. Did the offender intend to commit the alleged crime is a question the prosecution must answer in criminal cases. Ignorance is not a defense, and failing to remember crime is not an excuse in criminal proceedings. Before trial, the jury must ascertain that the one on trial is mentally stable for him to answer the question and if not, then psychiatric services will be involved for the case to proceed.

Men’s rea principle ensures that one is morally responsible in society as acts such as negligence that harm others make one liable. A case in point is when one digs a hole and leaves it uncovered, causing another person’s death. The prosecution must prove that were it not the accused’s action to leave the hole uncovered; then the deceased would not have met his death. This reason instills responsibility in society as people must be held responsible for their actions.

Morally, men’s rea faces criticism. A case in point is when one is held culpable for crimes that he could not discern. Accused incarcerated for defiling a minor who did not disclose her age before the offense is one of the incidences. The accused did not intend to rape because the minor did not disclose her age or sometimes lied about it. One selling alcohol to underage school-going children, he never had the ability to determine their age, and forcing them to so amounts to an invasion of privacy is also an example of these incidences. Some of these incidences make victims sound like they are the ones who committed most of the offenses they are offended with.

Cultures literally dictate morality in almost all societies. But some cultural aspects have been deemed illegal like female genital mutilation. This poses a dilemma in the legal field as culturally, it is right to circumcise, but this threatens the woman’s life, and in most countries, it is illegal. The accused do not have the ill motive to harm the woman, but it is a crime, and, in some cases, the victim dies out of the process. This makes the person blameworthy hence responsible for the crime, although he never intended to commit the alleged offense.

It is important to note that moral blameworthiness is a question that continues to perplex most scholars across the board. Norrie explains that moral blameworthiness portends the moral reasoning of an individual of a person in committing the said offense, and one becomes liable if it is proved to be committing must prove the existence of malice, which in most cases taken to mean the intention to commit the alleged crime and this is an upheaval task for the prosecution. Men’s rea principle entails confirming whether the accused is meant to commit the crime.

This principle ensures that the accused is held responsible for the crimes committed and is sentenced for the crimes committed. The punishment meted on the guilty person is therefore worthy of the crime committed, and this should be felt both by the jury and the judge to be fair. The justice system’s mantra is that justice should be done and must also be seen to have been done by the different parties interested in the case. Morally, this calls for the public’s responsibility in conducting their day-to-day transactions as any mishap leads to prosecution and subsequent sentencing.

Men’s rea ensures that people act in the best interest of others and anything that hurts another person calls for actin from the authorities. Realist posits that human nature is bad, which calls for a law that tames their actions intended to hurt others, and, in this case, men’s rea principle comes in handy. When one causes a crime without having the intention to do so, he is not culpable. This principle dictates that it is not right to nail somebody to prove that his actions caused the arm to the other he did with prior knowledge of the situation. He never had the intention of committing. When the accused is held accountable for his actions, then society is morally responsible as the kit is the responsibility of any society to inculcate norms in her people. The punishment meted on the guilty person is therefore worthy of the crime committed, and this should be felt both by the jury and the judge to be fair. The justice system’s mantra is that justice should be done and must also be seen to have been done by the different parties interested in the case. Morally, this calls for the public’s responsibility in conducting their day-to-day transactions as any mishap leads to prosecution and subsequent sentencing.

Norrie notes that men’s rea faces criticism (Norrie, 122). A case in point noted above is when one is held culpable for crimes that he could not discern. Accused incarcerated for defiling a minor who did not disclose her age prior to the offense is one of the incidences. The accused did not intend to rape because the minor did not disclose her age or sometimes lied about it.

Morality is, however, relative, and it generally denotes what is right or wrong and bad or good, and sometimes this depends on the society where one comes from. It is at the lawyers’ discretion to prove that the accused was in the right state of mind when the alleged offense was committed. The best case to demonstrate this scenario is Waldon v. the state of Illinois, in which the defendant had to prove beyond doubt that they acted in the best interest of other people and that their actions did not affect others. This remains a case used by many courts across the state to make decisions that relate to moral reasoning.  The case was more about testing the people of Illinois’s meal standing that it was evaluating its criminal justice system. As already been mentioned, the case law has been used across the United States to consider a similar decision that requires moral reasoning.

Norrie further noted that morality so much to do with hos an individual is raised socially (123). The justice system’s mantra is that justice should be done and must also be seen to have been done by the different parties interested in the case. Morally, this calls for the public’s responsibility in conducting their day-to-day transactions as any mishap leads to prosecution and subsequent sentencing. Accused incarcerated for defiling a minor who did not disclose her age before the offense is one of the incidences. The accused did not intend to rape because the minor did not disclose her age or sometimes lied about it. One selling alcohol to underage school-going children he never could determine their age and forcing them to so amounts to an invasion of privacy is also an example of these incidences.

This case helps illustrate how the criminal justice system works and the best way it can be improved. Moral blameworthiness is an issue that has been of great focus among many crime-related scholars for a period of time. As discussed, the ability to equate a person’s actions to the likely punishment that they may get is something that attracts natural or moral interest. How people behave when they understand the likely punishment is entirely different from handling the situation is entirely different scenarios. The cases that have been analyzed show how this difference comes about.

Works Cited

Norrie, Alan. “Punishment, responsibility, and justice: A relational critique.” (2010).