Guilty mind in sexual crimes

“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means an act does not constitute crime unless done with a guilty mind. A reasonable man is viewed as a moral agent and not simply as an instrument of causing harm. He is regarded as responsible for his actions. Being a responsible agent means that man i...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Mohamad Yunus, Mohamad Ismail, Mohamad Hanifa, Shamshina
Format:	Book
Language:	English
Published:	Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia 2017
Subjects:	K Law (General) KBP Islamic Law KD England and Wales KPG Malaysia
Online Access:	http://irep.iium.edu.my/56885/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/56885/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/56885/1/56885_Guilty%20mind%20in%20sexual%20crimes.pdf

id	iium-56885
recordtype	eprints
spelling	iium-568852019-05-15T07:52:57Z http://irep.iium.edu.my/56885/ Guilty mind in sexual crimes Mohamad Yunus, Mohamad Ismail Mohamad Hanifa, Shamshina K Law (General) KBP Islamic Law KD England and Wales KPG Malaysia “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means an act does not constitute crime unless done with a guilty mind. A reasonable man is viewed as a moral agent and not simply as an instrument of causing harm. He is regarded as responsible for his actions. Being a responsible agent means that man is capable of reason (right-thinking person); he is capable of understanding the social and legal norms to which he is subjected; he possesses free will. He can thus control his actions and can choose whether to comply with the law or not. Several statutory provisions do not expressly contain any specific provision for mental element (mens rea) in proving crimes committed. Nowhere in the Penal Code or elsewhere is there any general provision endorsing the doctrine of mens rea. Does this mean that liability in all such cases must be considered "strict" in the sense that no mental element or other criterion of blameworthiness need be established? For example, the offence of rape carrying a maximum to twenty years imprisonment under section 376 (1) makes no reference to any mental element. What is position of an accused who honestly believes that the woman is consenting to sexual intercourse when in fact she is not? And what of the accused who honestly thinks the girl is over 16 years of age when in fact she is not? Must such an accused person be convicted on the basis that the doctrine of mens rea is inapplicable under the Penal Code? This book discusses the issue and other related matters on mens rea comparatively and it is necessary reference for the various parties involved in the administration of criminal justice including students studying the subject of criminal law and evidence. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia 2017-05-07 Book PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://irep.iium.edu.my/56885/1/56885_Guilty%20mind%20in%20sexual%20crimes.pdf Mohamad Yunus, Mohamad Ismail and Mohamad Hanifa, Shamshina (2017) Guilty mind in sexual crimes. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Batu Pahat, Johor. ISBN 978-967-2110-04-0 http://penerbit.uthm.edu.my
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Local University
institution	International Islamic University Malaysia
building	IIUM Repository
collection	Online Access
language	English
topic	K Law (General) KBP Islamic Law KD England and Wales KPG Malaysia
spellingShingle	K Law (General) KBP Islamic Law KD England and Wales KPG Malaysia Mohamad Yunus, Mohamad Ismail Mohamad Hanifa, Shamshina Guilty mind in sexual crimes
description	“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means an act does not constitute crime unless done with a guilty mind. A reasonable man is viewed as a moral agent and not simply as an instrument of causing harm. He is regarded as responsible for his actions. Being a responsible agent means that man is capable of reason (right-thinking person); he is capable of understanding the social and legal norms to which he is subjected; he possesses free will. He can thus control his actions and can choose whether to comply with the law or not. Several statutory provisions do not expressly contain any specific provision for mental element (mens rea) in proving crimes committed. Nowhere in the Penal Code or elsewhere is there any general provision endorsing the doctrine of mens rea. Does this mean that liability in all such cases must be considered "strict" in the sense that no mental element or other criterion of blameworthiness need be established? For example, the offence of rape carrying a maximum to twenty years imprisonment under section 376 (1) makes no reference to any mental element. What is position of an accused who honestly believes that the woman is consenting to sexual intercourse when in fact she is not? And what of the accused who honestly thinks the girl is over 16 years of age when in fact she is not? Must such an accused person be convicted on the basis that the doctrine of mens rea is inapplicable under the Penal Code? This book discusses the issue and other related matters on mens rea comparatively and it is necessary reference for the various parties involved in the administration of criminal justice including students studying the subject of criminal law and evidence.
format	Book
author	Mohamad Yunus, Mohamad Ismail Mohamad Hanifa, Shamshina
author_facet	Mohamad Yunus, Mohamad Ismail Mohamad Hanifa, Shamshina
author_sort	Mohamad Yunus, Mohamad Ismail
title	Guilty mind in sexual crimes
title_short	Guilty mind in sexual crimes
title_full	Guilty mind in sexual crimes
title_fullStr	Guilty mind in sexual crimes
title_full_unstemmed	Guilty mind in sexual crimes
title_sort	guilty mind in sexual crimes
publisher	Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
publishDate	2017
url	http://irep.iium.edu.my/56885/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/56885/ http://irep.iium.edu.my/56885/1/56885_Guilty%20mind%20in%20sexual%20crimes.pdf
first_indexed	2023-09-18T21:20:19Z
last_indexed	2023-09-18T21:20:19Z
_version_	1777411838123704320

Guilty mind in sexual crimes

Similar Items