jnmjnmjnm t1_j90ik0l wrote
Law_Student t1_j9243nw wrote
You might be misunderstanding just how limited the mes rea requirement is. All that's necessary is intent to engage in the criminal act, not the intent to knowingly commit a crime. That's what the jury instructions will say, too.
So unless she can argue that she somehow didn't mean to cut off the foot and it just happened by accident, mes rea is met here. Yes, it's a very low hurdle. People can commit crimes even if they don't believe what they're doing is a crime, and they can be punished for it.
And mens rea isn't even necessary in many situations where someone has a special duty of care for a specific person. Here, a medical professional may well have a sufficiently elevated duty of care for a patient that even a failure to act could give rise to criminal liability.
jnmjnmjnm t1_j92827j wrote
I understand. You must know that the few paragraphs published in the media are not either side’s case. :)
Law_Student t1_j928vzf wrote
I don't understand your point. Are you saying mes rea is or is not met?
jnmjnmjnm t1_j929ogd wrote
I don’t have the evidence. That is my point. There are many things which could sway a jury.
notapolita t1_j90ixcf wrote
This does not say that you cannot be considered guilty unless you had criminal intent.
jnmjnmjnm t1_j90jzfl wrote
No, but it will likely be part of her defense. A sympathetic jury will give it consideration.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments