Editing Mens rea (section)

== Introduction ==
The standard [[common law]] test of criminal [[Legal liability|liability]] is expressed in the [[Latin]] phrase {{lang|la|actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea}},<ref name=":02">1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.1(a) (3d ed.)</ref> i.e. "the act is not [[Culpability|culpable]] unless the mind is guilty".<ref>Lanius, D., ''Strategic Indeterminacy in the Law'' ([[Oxford]]: [[Oxford University Press]], 2019), [https://books.google.com/books?id=b92ZDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA113&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false p. 113].</ref><ref>"By the time of Coke, the maxim {{lang|la|'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'}} (an act does not make one guilty unless his mind is guilty) had become well ingrained in the common law, and it remains a central precept of Anglo-American criminal law today." Martin R. Gardner, ''The Mens Rea Enigma: Observations on the Role of Motive in the Criminal Law Past and Present'', 1993 Utah L. Rev. 635, 636 (1993)</ref> As a general rule, someone who acted without mental [[Fault (law)|fault]] is not liable in [[criminal law]].<ref name=":32">". . . a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense." Model Penal Code § 2.02(1)</ref><ref>"A crime ordinarily is not committed if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent." 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 112</ref> Exceptions are known as [[strict liability (criminal)|strict liability]] crimes.<ref name=":6">21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 127</ref><ref>"Strict liability crimes are the exception and not the rule." 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 130</ref><ref>§ 5.5. Strict liability, 1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.5 (3d ed.)</ref> Moreover, when a person intends a harm, but as a result of bad aim or other cause the intent is transferred from an intended victim to an unintended victim, the case is considered to be a matter of [[transferred intent]].<ref>Hall, D. E., [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZmLpAgAAQBAJ ''Criminal Law and Procedure''] (Boston: [[Cengage Learning]], 2015), pp. 63–64.</ref>{{rp|63–64}}<ref>"Under the common-law doctrine of 'transferred intent,' if an accused attempts to injure one person and an unintended victim is injured because of the act, the accused's intent to injure the intended victim is transferred to the injury of the unintended victim, even though the wounding was accidental or unintentional." 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law § 115</ref>

The  types of mental states that apply to crimes vary depending on whether a jurisdiction follows criminal law under the [[common law tradition]] or, within the United States, according to the [[Model Penal Code]].<ref>§ 5.1(a) Common law and statutory crimes, 1 Subst. Crim. L. § 5.1(a) (3d ed.)</ref>

In [[Civil law (common law)|civil law]], it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for [[breach of contract]] or [[tort]], for example. But if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the [[Proximate cause|scope of liability]] and the [[damages]] payable to the [[plaintiff]].

In some jurisdictions, the terms {{lang|la|mens rea}} and {{lang|la|actus reus}} have been replaced by alternative terminology.<ref>Child, J., & [[David Ormerod|Ormerod, D.]], ''Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Essentials of Criminal Law'', 2nd ed., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), [https://books.google.com/books?id=cfd0DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false p. 95].</ref>{{rp|95}}<ref>Child, J., & [[David Ormerod|Ormerod, D.]], ''Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod's Essentials of Criminal Law'',, 3rd ed., 2019, [https://books.google.com/books?id=1CCWDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT118&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false p. 84].</ref>{{rp|84}}