Posted: May 18th, 2022

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Case 1 is a gut-wrenching video that went viral about a 16 years old girl, Jordan Holgerson, who was shoved over a 60-foot bridge by another girl, Taylor Smith, in Moulton Falls. Jordan Holgerson broke five ribs, both of her lungs were punctured, she was bruised all over her body and could have died.
In the case that followed these events, Holgerson v. Smith, there was an actus reus because, in the longer version of the video, it showed that there was an exchange of words between Smith and Holgerson regarding whether to jump into the water or not. Smith, is seen to get irritated with the back and forth persuasion suddenly, threatening to push Holgerson if she did not jump. In the case, the mens rea appeared when Smith mistook Holgerson’s standing on the edge of the bridge as consent for her to want to jump into the water. However, it was identified that when Holgerson looked at how far the water was from the bridge, she changed her mind and even asked Brady to hold her hand. Smith could have considered her change in mind and just let her not jump instead of pushing her over.
Common law recognizes that a person possesses an obligation to assist their child, spouse, or employee from danger (Lippman). Brady had asked Jordan not to jump if she did not want to. Therefore Brady played her part. Nonetheless, the friend who was taking the video should have helped Jordan seeing as she was not comfortable with the idea of jumping.
Case 2 is about a 20-year-old woman who was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for encouraging a male called Conrad Roy to kill himself via text message. Conrad Roy had died three years prior to the conclusion of the case inside his pickup truck through carbon monoxide poisoning.
In Case 2; Roy v. Carter, Carter did not act in actus reus but instead in mens rea. Her case did not meet the criteria of actus reus because, for approximately two years since Roy disclosed to her about his suicidal thoughts, she tried as much as she could to stop him from committing suicide and even had encouraged him also to seek professional help. Nevertheless, at some point, Roy threatened to hate her if she disclosed to anyone else about his suicidal thoughts and attempts. As a teenager, Carter, being intimidated by Roy, who was older, must have been too much of a burden to carry. She was seen to have sunk into the same depressive state as Conrad, which might have influenced her decision. That is why her case meets only mens rea requirements as she mistook his constant talking about suicide for over three years as consent. Lippman highlights that the penal code suggests that Michelle never physically forced Conrad to kill himself (74).
In the case, Roy’s parents were found guilty for not getting professional help for their son, although the father had pointed out that Michelle was the one that took advantage of his son’s weakness. This was despite the fact that the father knew his son was not okay emotionally. Three years was too long for parents not to take action and find out what their son was getting into in his private time. Given the situation, the parents had the duty to Intervene (Lippman).

References
Lippman, Matthew. Contemporary criminal law: concepts, cases, and controversies. Sage, 2009.

Order | Check Discount