Set in a typical
background of normal living hides the bleak truth about crimes: it lurks
everywhere and victimizes almost everyone it encounters. It hides itself as a
seemingly random action until the final stroke of deceit and harm landed on the
unknown victim. There is one problem though: the concept of how to define crime
often varies from the interpretation of the victim him/herself.
Theoretically, the
law follows a universal context of uniformity to achieve orderliness. To do
this, the lawmakers, before creating a law, have to check every single angle
that the law would likely to affect. This has led to a series of components that
limits or defines if an action is threatening, harming or offensive in nature. To know more, talk to your criminal defense attorney about it.
1.
Intent
Often referred as Mens Rea, intent is the first element of
the crime arguing the perpetrator’s foreknowledge of the deed. The capacity of
the perpetrator to invoke a malicious thought and have it materialize is an enough
landmark on the case. Literally means “mental
fault,” mens rea argues the purpose of the crime and the willingness of the
perpetrator (if an alibi). For example, a robbery doesn’t not happen simply
because an impulse triggered a man to do it. Obviously, it was planned and
premeditated, and falls on the first element of the crime.
2.
Conduct
After the
intent, all crimes are required to have actions before validating it as a
crime. Other than that, the law would simply dismiss the case for nothing. Idea-based
(Assumptions) are very less likely to be entertained in a court. Theoretically
speaking, next to mens rea, the criminal act is the ultimate proof if a crime
has been conducted.
3.
Concurrence
Concurrence on the other hand refers to the bridge that
connects the intent to the conduct. Though there are cases that intent and
conduct does not co-exist on the same area, concurrence connects the liability
of the crime to the perpetrator of the crime.
4.
Causation
Unlike the three mentioned above, the causation or the
actual harm done differs from state to state. Other states are requiring to detail
the damage of a certain act before the case proceeds. The actual definition and
role of causation is complex too complex to prove. For example, if a man shoots
a another man but misses, the charge could be eased from murder to attempted
murder (because the intent and conduct are both present but the causation is
not).