CAVEAT
Yesterday : SINCE TIME BEGAN : Today : IN TRUTH WE TRUST : Tomorrow
Published By : Goodwin-RC : CEO +1News Central
MAY 2ND, 2024
IMMMUNITY ARCHIVES : PLUS ONE NEWS CENTRAL : US FELONY POTUS LAW
MENS REA
Mens rea (pronounced /mɛnz ˈreɪə/), which translates from Latin as “guilty mind,” refers to the mental state of a defendant accused of committing a crime. In the U.S. legal system, establishing mens rea is crucial for proving guilt in a criminal trial, alongside the actus reus (the physical elements of the crime) 1.
Here are the key points about mens rea:
- Definition:
- Mens rea represents the culpable state of mind required to convict an individual of a specific offense.
- It involves what the accused person was thinking and their intent at the time of the alleged criminal act.
- Intent and Awareness:
- The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind.
- However, it’s important to note that a defendant need not be aware that their conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime.
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously illustrated the concept of intent by saying, “even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.”
- Hierarchy of Mental States:
- Mental states are usually organized hierarchically based on the offender’s blameworthiness.
- The seriousness of the crime often corresponds to the blameworthiness of the actor’s mental state.
- Here are the four hierarchical categories according to the Model Penal Code (MPC):
- Acting purposely: The defendant had a conscious object to act in a certain way.
- Acting knowingly: The defendant was practically certain that their conduct would cause a specific result.
- Acting recklessly: The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk.
- Acting negligently: The defendant was not aware of the risk but should have been aware of it 1.
- Application:
- Courts apply the requisite mental state to each element of a crime.
- Even if a statute does not explicitly mention a mental state, courts usually require proof of the defendant’s guilty state of mind.
- Federal criminal statutes without a specified mental state are read to include only the mens rea necessary to separate wrongful from innocent conduct 1.
In summary, mens rea is a fundamental concept in criminal law, emphasizing the importance of understanding an individual’s intent and awareness when determining guilt.
THE FOUR CORNERS OF IMMUNITY : ABSOLUTE : INTERNATIONAL LAW VERSUS US
In U.S. law, functional immunity and personal immunity are two distinct concepts related to the protection of certain individuals from prosecution. Let me break down the differences for you:
- Functional Immunity (Immunity Ratione Materiae):
- Functional immunity arises from customary international law and treaty law.
- It grants immunity to individuals who perform specific functions of state, usually foreign officials.
- When an individual performs an act of state (such as official diplomatic duties), they are immune from prosecution for any criminal offense related to that act.
- This immunity continues even after the person ceases to perform acts of state.
- However, functional immunity is limited to acts of state and ends only if the state itself ceases to exist.
- Examples of state offices that typically attract functional immunity include the head of state, head of government, senior cabinet members, ambassadors, and foreign and defense ministers.
- Many countries have incorporated these immunities into their domestic laws.
- Functional immunity does not protect officials from prosecution for crimes committed before or after their term in office or for personal acts while in office (subject to jurisdictional requirements and local law) 1.
- Personal Immunity (Immunity Ratione Personae):
- Personal immunity is granted to certain officials based on the office they hold, rather than the specific acts they perform.
- It covers both private and official acts of foreign officials during their mandate.
- However, personal immunity ceases to apply once an individual leaves office.
- Unlike functional immunity, personal immunity does not extend beyond the duration of the official’s mandate.
- Examples of individuals benefiting from personal immunity include diplomats and other state representatives of high rank 2.
In summary, functional immunity protects officials for acts related to their official duties, while personal immunity applies only during an official’s term in office and covers both private and official acts 3.
POLICE OFFICERS
In U.S. law, police officers are not generally provided with absolute immunity. Instead, they are typically granted qualified immunity, which is distinct from absolute immunity. Let me explain the difference:
- Qualified Immunity:
- Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that protects government officials (including police officers) performing discretionary duties from civil liability in cases involving the deprivation of statutory or constitutional rights.
- Under qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability as long as their actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
- The purpose of qualified immunity is to strike a balance between holding public officials accountable for irresponsible exercise of power and protecting them from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.
- It is intended to provide breathing room for officials to make reasonable mistakes of fact and law.
- However, qualified immunity does not protect officials who are “plainly incompetent” or knowingly violate the law 1.
- Absolute Immunity:
- Absolute immunity provides a complete immunity from civil liability and is usually extended to certain high-ranking officials, such as the President of the United States, legislators, judges, and prosecutors acting in their official duties.
- However, for police officers, absolute immunity does not apply in most cases.
- The U.S. Supreme Court has granted absolute immunity to law enforcement officers only in specific situations:
- When they testify at a criminal trial (Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 1983).
- When they testify before a grand jury (Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356, 132 S. Ct. 1497, 2012) 2.
- Practical Application:
- In practice, police officers are more likely to rely on qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity.
- Qualified immunity allows officers to defend their actions based on whether they reasonably believed their conduct was lawful, even if it later turns out to be unconstitutional.
- However, recent debates have questioned the efficacy of qualified immunity, with critics arguing that it may hinder accountability and erode constitutional rights 3.
In summary, while police officers do not typically enjoy absolute immunity, qualified immunity remains a significant legal protection for them
