No difference btw general and specific offense?

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
User avatar
APHill
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:22 am

No difference btw general and specific offense?

Postby APHill » Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:32 pm

Yesterday had a party at the crim law prof house. Today he said in class there is no difference between general and specific intent offenses.....I asked him what kind of mens rea will have to be proven for rape for example, he said it really does not matter, whatever mens rea will be easy to prove. Opinions?

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2398
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: No difference btw general and specific offense?

Postby nealric » Thu Sep 16, 2010 4:09 pm

For the purposes of crim class and the bar exam there is certainly a difference. I think what he means is that in the real world, lack of mens rea is rarely a reason for acquittal. The problem is that a person's mental state is almost impossible to prove or disprove. Even if it were, I strongly suspect most jurors really don't care about the mens rea- if they think you did it they are almost always going to come back with a guilty verdict.

User avatar
APHill
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:22 am

Re: No difference btw general and specific offense?

Postby APHill » Thu Sep 16, 2010 11:21 pm

thanks, i just think he was trying to mess people up. I asked one guy in my class what he thought th prof meant and the guy condescendingly explained that it means that different states require different mens rea, Like rape is a penetration with force but without consent but some states scratch off "without consent" as "without consent" is the mens rea of the offense, I laughed hysterically for a while




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests