Jeff, In your own interests I urge you to read and inwardly digest the following statement issued by the Law Society.
As the elliptic statements of the basic ingredients of criminal liability that they are
frequently taken to be, both expressions [actus reus and mens rea] are incomplete and
misleading. While the term mens rea is used in at least three distinct senses, so that failure to
distinguish clearly between them leads inevitably to confusion, the terminology of actus reus
tends to conceal the important principles that are at stake when the courts are deciding what
sorts of conduct deserve condemnation as criminal. I do not mean to suggest that the
traditional terminology should be abandoned; rather I would argue that a sharper awareness of
its limitations might help us to see more clearly what the preconditions to criminal liability
really are, and how far they really reflect the principles they are commonly supposed to
encapsulate. . . .and so..
The wrongful and illegal acquisition of the said Mud, by Jethroe de Glasse from the premises of one John de Aspin, owner of the said Cambrinous Craft Brewery and brewer of the said Cambrious Brown Ale whose ingredients contain a percentage of Mud in the brewing thereof, and also Purveyor of Cambrinouse Brown Ales to the Northern Shires, comstitutes a criminal offence which if proven can and will be punishable by death.
It was presumed that the Olde Glanstonbury Sewer Explosion of 1746 was a fitting punishment by an act of God and the Courts would feel that this was a just punishment on some of the perpetrators of this heinous crime.
Nevertheless the offence of the theft of the Gerston Mud, from the above Purveyor of Cambrinous Brown Ale to the Northern Shires, takes precedent over any other offence. As the accused, one Jethrow de Glasse, is now deceased, steps will be taken to exhume his remains and will then therefore be drawn and quartered before being fed to the local Farmers swine.
This act of law will be a deterrent to any other person or persons wishing to commit a similar offence. The British Courts take a very serious view of the theft of such Gerston Mud and the full weight of the Law will be applied to any offender.
This division of crime into its constituent parts is an exercise of analytical convenience: the
concepts of actus reus and mens rea are simply tools, useful in the exposition of the criminal
law. Great care should, therefore, be taken to avoid determining questions of policy by
reference to definition and terminology. Such observations as that the maxim actus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea serves the ?important purpose of stressing two basic requirements of
criminal liability,? make actus reus and mens rea seem rather more than analytical tools. They
have been converted from the descriptive to the normative: to propositions that criminal
liability should be based on harmful conduct, and should require a mental element. .
div>
So let that be a lesson to you.
Bookmarks