Criminal Law Jacob

/in /by

 

1) Distinguish the difference between mens rea and actus rea.

This week, we read about two different elements for criminal offenses: actus reus and mens rea.  Actus reus, also known as the guilty act, is the physical act of a crime.  This can be anything from distruction of property to assault or murder.  Some may not think of it, but omission is also considered actus reus.  This is because knowing that someone intends to harm someone, and not bringing to the authorities attention, is just as bad as committing the crime.  Mens rea, or the guilty mind, is where someone is mentally intended to commit a crime (Storm, 2012). 

2) What role do you think motive should play in criminal cases? Explain your answer.

Motive, or the reason someone commits a crime, does not constitute the criminal intent (mens rea), but it makes a case on a reason they may have committed a crime.  Proving the motive and finding the facts will prove the case and prove that they committed a crime.  Motive is not required to reach the verdict.  Kramer (2015) explained that intent (mens rea) is thought of as referring to “what” was meant to be done, while motive is “why” it was done.

3) How do you think having to prove mens rea instead of motive has affected the criminal justice system?

To prove the various components of mens rea, it takes a very thorough investigation, including the ability to find the motive.  Some of the things that need to be asked was if the intent of the crime committed purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently?  The analysis of the mental and physical state of the defendant would be able to assist in establishing the culpability of criminal acts (actus reus) and mens rea.  This will assist in determining the sentence and guilty verdicts (Carson & Felthous, 2003).

Thank you

answer this discussion question in 200 words no outside reference put in your own words

670 db1

/in /by

Primary Task Response: Within the Discussion Board area, write 400 words that respond to the following questions with your ideas, analysis, and comments supported with application of course learning materials. Be substantive and clear, and use examples to reinforce your ideas.

Note: All character and company names are fictional and are not intended to depict any actual person or business.

For assistance with your assignment, please use Beyond the Book, Web resources, and all course materials.

Read the UWEAR and PALEDENIM scenario found here. You will first meet with the CEOs of each organization, Theresa Tramlin and Mike Miller, to help them understand their important leadership roles for the success of the merger. 

After reviewing the course materials for this week, prepare your recommendations for them regarding their approaches to leading the merger. The merger is a significant change for both organizations; there is growing anxiety and uncertainty among the employees of both organizations. The goal is to complete the merger in a way that maintains employee performance and allegiance to the merged organization. Both CEOs were promoted from managerial positions, so one of your tasks is to help them understand how to distinguish the two roles.

Issues to address include, but are not limited to, the following: 

  • How will you explain the difference between managing and leading, to set the stage to help Theresa and Mike focus on leading?
  • What leadership approaches will be effective in leading the merger? Include at least 3 approaches, and explain in what circumstances those approaches should be used and why. 
  • Consider the research findings by Kabacoff (1998) that, although men and women are perceived as equally effective in leading, women tend to focus more on production, attaining results, and people, while men tend to focus on strategic planning, organization vision, and business tasks. If this is the case in this situation for Theresa and Mike, what are the implications for their leadership during the merger? 
  • Reflect on your own experience as a leader, if not professionally, then in the community or family. With which leadership approaches are you most comfortable? What are the implications for you if you were one of the leaders in this scenario?