Revisiting The Principle Of Mens Rea: Balancing Intent And Justice In Modern Criminal Law

Deepika K Sasi, LLM Student, Sree Narayana Law College, Poothotta, affiliated with Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala

Anoop Antony, LLM Student, Sree Narayana Law College, Poothotta, affiliated with Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala

ABSTRACT

Mens rea, or a guilty mind, has always been at the heart of criminal law. That is, their subjective test for criminal liability is of fundamental importance, since this involves the assurance that sanctions can attach only to crimes committed with intent, knowledge, recklessness, or - in some cases - gross negligence. One of the basal objectives of any criminal system is thus to avoid the arbitrary infliction of punishment on those individuals who act without any culpable mental state. However, in the backdrop of these modern developments within criminal law, including strict liability offences and refinements in the meaning of criminal negligence, there has been increasing debate and a need for critical review of the role played by mens rea in deciding guilt. They challenged the traditional notion of criminal intent and have been seen as grave concerns regarding the relative fairness and scope of liability in a very complex legal environment.

Through interpretations of what mens rea represents across the world and how it applies in modern legal systems in view of emerging offenses such as cybercrime and violations against environmental law, this paper addresses the varying trends in interpreting mens rea and seeks to answer what mental culpability really means. The article combines landmark case laws and legal doctrines in a critical examination of how the judiciary finds a delicate balance in individual culpability against broad requirements like public safety and environmental protection. In the final instance, the paper advocates for an amendment of the mens rea principle for modern demands of criminal justice without compromising the rights of the individual. This, while doing so, focuses on the concerns that legal systems need to keep criminal responsibility intact while they adapt to meet modern challenges.