Possession of Cocaine: Mens Rea v Specific Intent?
Question by .: mens rea v specific intent?
can you explain, in your own words please (because i’ve already read definitions online & i am still confused), what the difference between mens rea and “specific intent” is? i know what mens rea is, but i don’t understand how specific intent fits in with it, or how it’s different, etc… examples would be helpful as well (this isn’t for hw, im just trying to study).
Best answer:
Answer by du nomad
“Specific Intent” is precisely what it sounds like. It means that the perpetrator performs the act for a specific/particular purpose/intention. The best example is common law burglary: The breaking and entering of the dwelling of another, at night, with the intent to commit a felony therein. So, someone who breaks a window and enters someone else’s house for the purpose of finding shelter does not have the requisite “specific intent” to qualify for burglary.
Now, let’s modify it slightly. Someone breaks into someone else’s house to mess things up (no actual vandalism) and scare the owner. The perpetrator has the requisite mens rea/”evil mind” of criminal activity, but they lack the specific intent (at the time of entry) to commit a felony and therefore are not guilty of burglary (a specific intent crime).
What do you think? Answer below!
More Possession Of Cocaine Information…
Specific intent is one type of mens rea. “Mens rea” or guilty mind is one of the elements necessary to prove that person committed a crime. Different crimes have different “mens rea” requirements, usually among the following “specific intent,” “knowingly”, “recklessly,” or “negligently.”
For instance, take murder. Assume that the definition of murder is as follows: “A person is guilty of murder if, with the intent to kill another person, he kills another person.”
Assume also that the definition of manslaughter is as follows: “A person is guilty of manslaughter when, with reckless disregard for the safety of others, he causes the death of another.”
In the first definition, the mens rea is “specific intent.” In the definition of manslaughter it is recklessness.
Now, take the following two scenarios: First, “John picks up his gun, loads it, aims it at Victor’s head from two feet away and pulls the trigger.”
Second, David is sitting in his livingroom surrounded by 10 friends and family members. He decides to try to clean the gun he just got. He has used guns before and knows a few things about gun safety. His brother tells him to go to garage to not be around family members, but he ignores them. While working on his his gun, he aims it at the floor and pulls the trigger. The bullet goes through the floor and kills his nephew in the basement.
Is John guilty of murder? Of course. It’s clear from his actions that he intended to kill victor and did so. His mens rea was “specific intent.”
Is John guilty of manslaughter? No. He did not act recklessly. He acted with intent.
Is David guilty of murder? No. He did not intend to kill his nephew, even though he did in fact kill him.
Is David guilty of manslaughter? Maybe. Recklessness is sometimes defines as acting with the knowing disregard for a real and actual danger. Maybe or maybe not David acted knowing there was a real risk a round was chambered and that someone would be downstairs and that the type of ammo he used could go throgh the floor and kill someone. Maybe not. Either way, he is an *ss.
How about drug possession. Assume the crime is defined as “A person is guilty of drug possession in the third degree when he knowingly possesses cocaine.”
Assume that the police observe John walk up to a drug dealer and the overhear him say, “Yo. Let me get a dime of coke.” The dealer hands him a glassine envelope containing a white powder and he hands the dealer $ 10.” The cops arrest him, test the powder for cocaine (positive) and charge him.
Now assume that the cops pull David over for speeding. They see a small bag poking out of the glove compartment and David gives permission for them to open the compartment. The bag has cocaine in it. The car belongs to Lisa and David just borrowed it.
Is John guilty of drug possession? Of course. It is easy to show that he knowingly (the mens rea) possessed coke because he asked a dealer to buy coke and bought the white powder that turned out to be coke.
Is David guilty? Maybe, but we can’t prove it. If we (the cops) need to prove that he KNOWINGLY possessed it, all we can prove is that it was in a car he was driving and that he borrowed the car. That’s not enough to prove the mens rea of knowledge that he possessed the coke.