Editing Mens rea (section)

== Modes of culpability outside the United States ==
The levels of ''mens rea'' and the distinction between them vary among jurisdictions. Although common law originated from England, the common law of each jurisdiction with regard to culpability varies as precedents and statutes vary.

=== England and Wales ===
*''Direct intention'': the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It is his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence.
*''Oblique intention'': the result is a virtually certain consequence or a 'virtual certainty' of the defendant's actions, and that the defendant appreciates that such was the case.
*''Knowingly'': the actor knows, or should know, that the results of his conduct are reasonably certain to occur.
*''[[Recklessness (law)#England and Wales|Recklessness]]'': the actor foresees that particular consequences may occur and proceeds with the given conduct, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not.
*''Criminal negligence'': the actor did not actually foresee that the particular consequences would flow from his actions, but a [[reasonable person]], in the same circumstances, would have foreseen those consequences.

=== Scotland ===
*''Intention'': the accused willingly committed a criminal act entirely aware of his actions and their consequences. Necessary for murder and for assault.
*''Recklessness'': the accused was aware the criminal act could be potentially dangerous but did not give a second thought to its consequences, for example, involuntary [[culpable homicide]].

=== Canada ===
The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] has found that the [[Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]] guarantees a minimum requirement for the mental state of various crimes. For example, the crime of murder must include a mental requirement of at least subjective foresight of death. For crimes where imprisonment is a sanction, there is a requirement of at least a defence of due diligence.

=== Australia ===
Mens rea is an element of the offence that the prosecution needs to assert beyond a reasonable doubt for the accused to be found fully liable of the offence, assuming the offence is one that requires an element of mens rea (see, He Kaw Teh v R - case from the Australian High Court regarding importance of establishment of the element of mens rea). Some offences exist whereby an act can be proven but there is lack of the necessary guilt of mind, such can be seen in instances where courts are unable to establish criminal intent due to persistent mental health or cognitive impairment (see, [[Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment (Forensic Provisions) Act (NSW)]] s 30). Mens rea can be established both through common law (see R v Morgan) or through statute law. Often in cases where the full guilty mind can not be established, statute law in Australia will provide an alternative sentencing option, such relationship can be seen in the Crimes Act 1900, s33 and 35, where s33(3) states s 35 as an alternate sentence for a finding of Grievous Bodily Harm in the event whereby the Jury is not satified that the accused held the necessary element of specific intent required for criminal liability under s 33. In such instances, s 35 being a charge of recklessness instead of intent, is prescribed.

=== India ===
Mens Rea in the [[Indian Penal Code]] 1860 sets out the definition of offences, the general conditions of liability, the conditions of exemptions from liability and punishments for the respective offences. Legislatures had not used the common law doctrine of mens rea in defining these crimes. However, they preferred to import it by using different terms indicating the required evil intent or mens rea as an essence of a particular offence.

Guilt in respect to almost all offences created under the IPC is fastened either on the ground of intention, knowledge or reason to believe. Almost all the offences under the IPC are qualified by one or other words such as 'wrongful gain or loss', '[[dishonesty]]', '[[fraudulent]]ly', 'reason to believe', 'criminal knowledge or intention', 'intentional cooperation', 'voluntarily', 'malignantly', 'wantonly', 'maliciously'. All these words indicate the blameworthy mental condition required at the time of commission of the offence, nowhere found in the IPC, its essence is reflected in almost all the provisions of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Every offence created under the IPC virtually imports the idea of criminal intent or mens rea in some form or other.

=== Islamic law ===
In Islamic law, intention (''niyya'') is a criterion for determining whether a criminal act is punishable or pardonable, or whether the penalty for such a crime is predetermined (''ḥadd'') or discretionary (''taʿzīr''). The offender cannot be found guilty until their intention in committing the crime has been taken into consideration.<ref>[[Sobhi Mahmassani|Maḥmaṣṣānī, S. R.]], ''The Philosophy of Jurisprudence in Islam'', trans. [[Farhat Jacob Ziadeh|F. J. Ziadeh]] ([[Leiden]]: [[Brill Publishers|E. J. Brill]], 1961), p. 160.</ref>