A Case Study Of Curt R. Bartol & Anne M.

Curt R. Bartol & Anne M. Bartol (2015) explained that the term mens rea is very important in judicial settings. The term mens rea is critical to prosecutors because it refers to the notion that someone intentionally committed a criminal act. Prosecutors are responsible for proving that the defendant committed a criminal act with a guilty mind in order for the defendant to be held criminally responsible for whatever it is that he or she has done. Therefore, prosecutors frequently attempt to provide evidence showing that the defendant purposely carried out a criminal act with a guilty mind. Criminal intent is incredibly important because an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for something that they did without any criminal intentions
V’s assault in the case study (Mart & Connelly, 2010). The case study clearly explained how current and past evaluations had suggested that Mr. V had experienced epileptoid automatism or postictal combativeness during the time that the assault took place. Despite the fact that Mr. V assaulted a paramedic, there was absolutely no motive or purpose that could be linked to Mr. V’s act of violence. Furthermore, many would consider Mr. V’s actions to symbolize a remarkably senseless crime. Conversely, the only plausible explanation that surfaced was supported by findings from past and recent medical examinations. Taken together, the results from these examinations highly suggested that Mr. V was suffering from a seizure disorder that was going untreated at the time of the event. Markus Reuber & Ronnie D. Mackay (2008) explained that it is rare for epileptic seizures to be linked with behavior that is violent, aggressive, or criminal. In contrast, Reuber and Mackay highlighted how many have observed cases of epileptic seizures that were characterized by diverse behaviors that are completely detached from volitional
138). They explained that this is due to the importance of proving mens rea in judicial settings throughout Western jurisdictions. Reuber and Mackay explained how individuals were not conscious of anything that was actually occurring while experiencing episodes of epileptoid automatism. Since individuals were not in control of their actions or aware of what they were doing during cases of epileptoid automatism, it is incredibly hard to prove mens rea or criminal intent in any case that lacks additional evidence that is suggestive of criminal intent. Based off of the information included in the case study, Mr. V had absolutely no criminal intentions of physically harming the paramedic that was assaulted. This is because he was in a postictal state in which he was characterized as being unconscious and completely oblivious to what transpired during the epileptic episode. Considering this, Mr. V could not have purposely intended to carry out the assault on the paramedic while being in this state of mind. As a result, Mr. V’s charges should be dropped because none of the evidence suggested that he had any intentions of harming the paramedic. However, all of the evidence that has been discovered suggested that this event was the result of Mr. V’s seizure disorder that was going