Difference between revisions of "Actus Reus (Voluntary Act)"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 8: Line 8:
 
**A defendant's status or condition cannot constitute an act. In the United States, the Supreme Court has held that a law making addiction a crime to be an unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
 
**A defendant's status or condition cannot constitute an act. In the United States, the Supreme Court has held that a law making addiction a crime to be an unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
 
*Acts must be voluntary. Reflexes, bodily movements during sleep or unconsciousness, and conduct while under hypnosis do not constitute acts. However, conduct leading to the involuntary state may suffice, e.g. an individual who has himself hypnotized for the purpose of committing a crime. Similarly, becoming extremely intoxicated before crashing a car would surely satisfy the act requirement.
 
*Acts must be voluntary. Reflexes, bodily movements during sleep or unconsciousness, and conduct while under hypnosis do not constitute acts. However, conduct leading to the involuntary state may suffice, e.g. an individual who has himself hypnotized for the purpose of committing a crime. Similarly, becoming extremely intoxicated before crashing a car would surely satisfy the act requirement.
*Omissions do not constitute acts. For example, an individual who chooses not to save a stranger drowning in front of him usually cannot be held criminally liable, at least in the British and American legal traditions. Reasons for this approach include the fact that laws criminalizing inaction would be vague, and the difficulty of deciding which of various people should be held liable when more than one person chose not to act.   
+
*Omissions do not constitute acts. For example, an individual who chooses not to save a stranger drowning in front of him usually cannot be held criminally liable, at least in the British and American legal traditions. Reasons for this approach include the intuition that the difference between acting and failing to act is important, the fact that laws criminalizing inaction would be vague, and the difficulty of deciding which of various people should be held liable when more than one person chose not to act.   
 
== Sources ==
 
== Sources ==
 
Chapter 1, Criminal Law, Emanuel Law Outline, Aspen Publishers, 2000
 
Chapter 1, Criminal Law, Emanuel Law Outline, Aspen Publishers, 2000

Revision as of 11:21, 16 June 2010

'Actus Reus' refers to the requirement that the defendant have carried out a voluntary act. It is important to distinguish such acts from thoughts, words, states of possession, or status; involuntary acts; and omissions.

What Acts Are Not

  • Acts are distinct from thoughts, words, possession and status.
    • Thoughts alone can never be punished as crimes. Lawmakers are hesitant to impose controls on what people may think, and such laws would also present profound problems of proof and enforcement.
    • Words usually cannot constitute acts. However, depending on the jurisdiction and the crime, an agreement to commit a crime may be enough to constitute conspiracy, and words of encouragement may constitute aiding and abetting a crime.
    • In most countries, possession holds a unique position, as it does not constitute an act, but may be criminalized. In some countries, however, including the United States, possession has been legally defined as a voluntary act. Possession usually includes only knowing, conscious possession.
    • A defendant's status or condition cannot constitute an act. In the United States, the Supreme Court has held that a law making addiction a crime to be an unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment.
  • Acts must be voluntary. Reflexes, bodily movements during sleep or unconsciousness, and conduct while under hypnosis do not constitute acts. However, conduct leading to the involuntary state may suffice, e.g. an individual who has himself hypnotized for the purpose of committing a crime. Similarly, becoming extremely intoxicated before crashing a car would surely satisfy the act requirement.
  • Omissions do not constitute acts. For example, an individual who chooses not to save a stranger drowning in front of him usually cannot be held criminally liable, at least in the British and American legal traditions. Reasons for this approach include the intuition that the difference between acting and failing to act is important, the fact that laws criminalizing inaction would be vague, and the difficulty of deciding which of various people should be held liable when more than one person chose not to act.

Sources

Chapter 1, Criminal Law, Emanuel Law Outline, Aspen Publishers, 2000