Imagine being convicted of a crime—not because you intended to break the law, but simply because what you did was unknowingly illegal. That’s the problem we’re facing as mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) is increasingly ignored or watered down in our federal laws.
Without clear mens rea standards, innocent people can be punished for accidental or technical violations of the law. Additionally, the absence of intent requirements gives prosecutors unbridled discretion, which can lead to politically motivated or unfair charges.
Criminal law has always relied on a simple formula: mens rea (intent) + actus reus (action) = crime. But today, many laws are written or interpreted without clear intent requirements, meaning people can be prosecuted based solely on their actions, even if they never meant to do anything wrong. While some crimes intentionally abandon mens rea, that is largely the exception. So, the inadvertent explosion of laws written without intent requirements is an error that can and should be remedied.
This erosion of mens rea protections is also fueling overcriminalization and inconsistent prosecutions.
As the federal criminal code continues to expand, intent requirements are becoming more vague and some are disappearing altogether. With too many laws at the government’s disposal and weak mens rea, unfettered prosecutorial discretion can – and has – lead to broad and inconsistent sentences and convictions.
The U.S. Congress has an opportunity to ensure consistency and restore fairness by creating a default mens rea standard to fill in the gaps where intent requirements are missing from federal laws. These reforms would not weaken public safety. Criminals would still be caught, charged, and convicted. Mens rea reforms would simply ensure that the government is held to task when the loss of liberty is at stake.
It’s time to make mens rea reform a priority. Read our full report to learn more about why intent matters in the criminal justice system.
You can read the full article at Right on Crime.