Question

Read the descriptions of each action. Based on your understanding of what constitutes a crime, establish whether each action has both actus reus and mens rea and qualifies as a crime. Explain your answer in a few sentences. Joseph, a vegan, went to a restaurant for dinner. He lost his temper when the server accidentally brought him a meat dish. He slammed his hand hard on the table. The impact caused a glass to fly off the table and strike a woman at the next table, causing a laceration.

Answer 1

Actus reus is the action involved in a criminal act, and it is a crucial element of a crime. In this case, Joseph’s voluntary actions injured the woman, and authorities can establish actus reus. However, authorities cannot establish mens rea, which refers to the intent or the purpose of the criminal act, because Joseph did not intend to injure the woman. Because there is no concurrence of actus reus and mens rea in this case, we cannot classify Joseph’s action as a crime.

Step-by-step explanation:

Plato

Answer 2

The act of inflciting bodily harm to the woman is a crime under "actus reus".

But there is no intentional crime committed under "mens rea".

So, the act doesn't qualify as a crime.

Step-by-step explanation:

In criminal law, "actus reus" is when a person physically harms another person along with "mens rea" which is the mental intention of doing the crime and planning it. That means that an act can be considered a crime only when the actus reus and mens rea are hand-in-hand.

In the given scenario, Joseph's act of slamming his hand on the table is the result of his anger on being served a non-vegetarian dish even though he is a vegan. And this resulted in the bodily harm of the woman nearby. And this act of inflicting bodily harm to another person is not an intentional act, for Joseph did not pre-plan it. So, we can safely say that the action does not constitute a criminal act.