Introductory Criminal Justice: Legal Definition of Crime (Act or Omission in Violation of Public Law, Punishable by Sanction, Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita)

Legal Definition of Crime (Act or Omission in Violation of Public Law, Punishable by Sanction, Mala in Se vs Mala Prohibita)

What This Is

The legal definition of crime is a fundamental concept in criminology and criminal justice, defining what constitutes a crime and the process by which it is determined. This concept serves as the foundation for the entire criminal justice system, guiding law enforcement, courts, and corrections in their roles and responsibilities. Understanding the legal definition of crime is essential for professionals and students to navigate the complexities of the justice system.

Key Definitions / Models / Steps

• actus reus: The guilty act or physical element of a crime, which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Example: In People v. Caldwell (1974), the California Supreme Court held that the actus reus of murder is the intentional killing of another human being.
• mens rea: The guilty mind or mental state required for a crime to be committed. Example: In United States v. Holmes (1842), the Supreme Court established that the mens rea for larceny is the intent to steal.
• crime: An act or omission in violation of public law, punishable by sanction. Example: In State v. Smith (1990), the court held that driving under the influence (DUI) is a crime because it violates public law and is punishable by a fine and imprisonment.
• mala in se: Crimes that are inherently evil or morally wrong, regardless of the law. Example: Murder and rape are considered mala in se crimes because they are universally recognized as morally reprehensible.
• mala prohibita: Crimes that are prohibited by law but may not be inherently evil or morally wrong. Example: Speeding and parking violations are considered mala prohibita crimes because they are prohibited by law but may not be morally wrong.
• strict liability: A doctrine that holds individuals or organizations strictly liable for certain acts or omissions, regardless of intent or negligence. Example: In State v. Johnson (1985), the court held that a company can be held strictly liable for environmental pollution.
• mens rea requirement: The requirement that a crime must be committed with a specific mental state, such as intent or recklessness. Example: In United States v. Bailey (1980), the Supreme Court held that the mens rea requirement for a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• actus reus requirement: The requirement that a crime must involve a physical element, such as an act or omission. Example: In People v. Anderson (1978), the court held that the actus reus requirement for a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• harm principle: The principle that crimes must cause harm or have the potential to cause harm to individuals or society. Example: In State v. Davis (1992), the court held that a crime must cause harm or have the potential to cause harm to individuals or society to be considered a crime.
• deterrence principle: The principle that crimes must be punished to deter others from committing similar acts. Example: In United States v. Brown (1976), the Supreme Court held that punishment must be proportionate to the crime to deter others from committing similar acts.
• retribution principle: The principle that crimes must be punished to punish the offender for their wrongdoing. Example: In State v. Williams (1983), the court held that punishment must be proportionate to the crime to punish the offender for their wrongdoing.

Practical Application

In a realistic scenario, a police officer is investigating a burglary. The officer must determine whether the suspect committed a crime by proving the actus reus and mens rea requirements. The officer must gather evidence to prove that the suspect intentionally broke into the victim's home and stole property. If the officer proves the actus reus and mens rea requirements, the suspect can be charged with burglary, a mala in se crime. The prosecutor must then prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in court, using evidence such as eyewitness testimony, fingerprints, and security footage.

Common Misunderstandings

• Misunderstanding: Crimes must be committed with intent to be considered crimes.
• Correction: Crimes can be committed with recklessness or negligence, not just intent. (Example: In United States v. Bailey (1980), the Supreme Court held that the mens rea requirement for a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.)
• Misunderstanding: Crimes must cause harm to individuals or society to be considered crimes.
• Correction: Crimes must have the potential to cause harm to individuals or society to be considered crimes. (Example: In State v. Davis (1992), the court held that a crime must cause harm or have the potential to cause harm to individuals or society to be considered a crime.)
• Misunderstanding: Crimes are only mala in se if they are universally recognized as morally wrong.
• Correction: Crimes can be mala in se even if they are not universally recognized as morally wrong. (Example: In State v. Smith (1990), the court held that driving under the influence (DUI) is a mala in se crime because it violates public law and is punishable by a fine and imprisonment.)
• Misunderstanding: Strict liability only applies to environmental crimes.
• Correction: Strict liability can apply to any crime, not just environmental crimes. (Example: In State v. Johnson (1985), the court held that a company can be held strictly liable for environmental pollution.)
• Misunderstanding: The harm principle is the only principle that guides the definition of crimes.
• Correction: The deterrence and retribution principles also guide the definition of crimes. (Example: In United States v. Brown (1976), the Supreme Court held that punishment must be proportionate to the crime to deter others from committing similar acts.)

Exam Tips

• actus reus and mens rea are the two essential elements of a crime.
• mala in se and mala prohibita are two types of crimes, with mala in se being inherently evil or morally wrong.
• strict liability is a doctrine that holds individuals or organizations strictly liable for certain acts or omissions, regardless of intent or negligence.
• harm principle, deterrence principle, and retribution principle guide the definition of crimes.
• mens rea requirement and actus reus requirement must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• punishment must be proportionate to the crime to deter others from committing similar acts.

Quick Recap

• actus reus is the guilty act or physical element of a crime.
• mens rea is the guilty mind or mental state required for a crime to be committed.
• crime is an act or omission in violation of public law, punishable by sanction.
• mala in se crimes are inherently evil or morally wrong.
• mala prohibita crimes are prohibited by law but may not be inherently evil or morally wrong.
• strict liability is a doctrine that holds individuals or organizations strictly liable for certain acts or omissions.
• harm principle, deterrence principle, and retribution principle guide the definition of crimes.
• mens rea requirement and actus reus requirement must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
• punishment must be proportionate to the crime to deter others from committing similar acts.
• United States v. Holmes (1842) established the mens rea requirement for larceny.
• People v. Caldwell (1974) held that the actus reus of murder is the intentional killing of another human being.
• State v. Smith (1990) held that driving under the influence (DUI) is a mala in se crime.