Criminology student

WHAT IS “MENS REA AND ACTUS REA”
When an individual has been prosecuted and is attending a Court of Law, the Mens Rea and Actus Rea both need to be established by the Lawyers in order to determine their level of culpability and thus be able to argue a case and give them the appropriate sentence if convicted.
Mens Rea and Actus Rea are central to the Criminal Justice System -
Mens Rea is the intentions of the offender when they were committing the crime or what their mental state was at the time.
Actus Rea is the criminal act they committed, so it is the actual physical crime itself.
In order to establish a crime, both Mens Rea and Actus Rea need to be established in order for a criminal case to be presented to the court. Homicide for example, having the Mens Rea to kill, but not actually committing a murder would not be a crime as there is no Actus Rea. Similarly, if homicide had taken place, but the Mens Rea determines an accidental death, then again a crime has not been committed. If the Mens Rea shows and intent to kill and the offender had committed an act of homicide (Actus Rea) then a case of murder could be presented to the Court.

EYES HERE!! FIRE REVIEWER 🫰🏻❤️
Try to answer! ⬇️

Sa mga naghahanap ng penology and fire examination reviewer, message me lang po dito sa page. 🫶

meron din po kaming book for criminology reviewer, link here: https://shope.ee/4ppc1eXiWz

What is the scientific way to rehabilitate the criminal?

Classical school of criminology.

was given in 18th century. this theory was the combined effort of cesare beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, it was the first theory of criminology. the concept of free will and hedonism was given by Jeremy Bentham while cesare beccaria worked on punishment. In 1964 cesare beccaria write essay on essay on crime and punishment. Free will concept or rationalism concept was that everyone has own free will to commit anything, everyone is rational and there are no any concept of natural or evil force. Hedonism concept was that everyone has hedonism calculus to calculate that how to get pleasure and avoid pian.

Max Weber (1864-1920), offered the earliest theory of what would later become symbolic interactionism by linking interpretivism to interactionism. He believed Sociology to be a science of "social activity and reasoning" and brought forth a theory of human behaviour based on frequent, face to face interactions. The key to understanding social behaviour was principally to observe the interactional aspect of people, whilst they were active in their social settings. Indeed, people’s behaviours did vary in differing social contexts, as could be observed in the Interactionist and Structural Functionalist perspectives; i.e. (Parks’s version of – “interactionism” primarily from Conflict Theory and Class conflict which are macro-level perspectives). This method was however of limited use for Weber, as it only served to analyse social, economic, environmental backgrounds of people in society. The focus also needed to get to the psychology and principally the reasoning (motivations) of people, that were created as a consequence of their typical social interactions.
Weber utilised the concept of Verstehen (cognitive empathy perspective-taking ) as a vital component in understanding human behaviour. As opposed to the “Piety” (or inherent lack of emotional empathy in criminals) earlier suggested by Garafalo, Weber argued that understanding the rationale and perceptions of individuals was key.
Verstehen was divided into two factors -
(1) The “observational” (and mimicking) of others
(2) The “empathic understanding” of the feelings, motives and perceptions of others.
The approach of “Empathic Understanding” would allow us to see the world from another’s perspective, which he coined as “Eklarendes Verstehen”, (cognitive empathy). This would enable us to understand the reasoning of others in regards to their behaviours. It would be the first step in establishing the approach of symbolic interactionism over the following decades. It was also an analysis which would later became known as “Interpretative Sociology”, which is a concept originating from Max Weber’s theory of Verstehen and Social Action Theory. The Positivist School’s approach of science, objectivity and quantification told us little about the meaningfulness and psychology behind human behaviour. However, Weber’s approach was an Anti-Positivist stance that explored the causes of human behaviour based on the complex nature of how people interpreted their social interactions. Weber applied Verstehen to create his “Social Action Theory”, which analysed human behaviour from a metaphysical (rather than biological or quantitative) perspective. At the individual or micro-sociological level, it explained how the behaviours and actions of individuals resulted from their observing and being influenced by their more significant others.
As individuals interacted they experienced and interpreted their social situations differently from one another, despite being in the same social groups and/or socioeconomic conditions. Based on this, Weber believed it was the individual that actually shaped society and not the social structure. Human beings were conscious, with independent feelings and emotions and quintessentially their own unique rationales. Nevertheless, the existing structural conditions and formal organisations of society could still collectively motivate people into conformity; especially since society was evolving through “rationalisations”. Diligence, obedience and adherence to religion were influenced through the control and benefits Capitalism and the “Protestant Ethic” had to offer. Therefore, Weber continued to support the structural and cultural perspectives as a determinants of human behaviour, as society, workplaces and religious circles all influenced his theorised forms of motivation.
Weber argued there were four forms of motivation in Capitalist society that shaped human action, these were -
(1) Traditional Social Action, how custom and convention controlled human behaviours and attitudes. E.G. not working on a Sunday or supporting the continuity of the traditional family Unit or businesses.
(2) Affective Social Action, a motivation specific to the individual and based on their own desires. Eg they may attend their workplace or University simply because they enjoy it and without any sense of obligation.
(3)Value Rational Social Action, eg how the Protestant Ethic shaped conformity or actively attending church. Or how the family and workplace promoted values of obligation and working hard to provide.
(4) Instrumental-Rational Social Action – eg, trying hard in School or Work in order to reap the benefits they have to offer, like promotion, wealth, etc.
Sociocultural, socioeconomic, authoritative and religious agencies all influenced people by encouraging the aforementioned motivations for Weber. If Capitalist society and religion was rational and logical (meritocracy, moral guidance, etc) and an individual was placed into such a productive system of routine, then their behaviour would be motivated most significantly into conformity and diligence. Weber stressed the importance of such a routine as a strong means of influencing productive behaviour within society. For example, how individuals mimicked the hard work of others (Aktuelles Verstehen - observation) and through their “empathic understanding” concluded that it is worthwhile and self-advancing (Eklarendes Verstehen - meaningfulness/motive).
Weber brought forward essential elements of symbolic interactionism that were “meaningful interaction”, individual rationales and the viewpoint of the individual. We learn that interaction creates a variety of meanings and motivations for each individual, which are all dependent on how they interpret their social situations. Also, we learn that “motives” are a determinant of human action as well as social, cultural and structural agencies in society, thus we can merge micro-level interactionism with macro-level perspectives. These factors would form part of the basis for the later study of symbolic interactionism.