type 2: Baron and Yaffe
These two articles are centered around the topic of mens rea. Mens rea is the mental state and awareness of committing a crime that makes you culpable. It is a pretty significant topic within law and many have their own opinions on the subject matter. Baron, in Negligence, Mens Rea, and What we Want the Element of Mens Rea to Provide, mainly focuses on what negligence is and if the act of negligence is culpable with mens rea. Yaffe in, Mens Rea by the Numbers, primarily uses a numerical argument to establish why mens rea is significant in a court of law. These two articles discuss different aspects of the mens rea principle, but together illustrated what mens rea means thoroughly.
Baron centers his article on negligence, and if the act of negligence is illegal due to the mens rea of the suspect. Yaffe argues that negligence is not a mental state itself ergo, it mens rea cannot be used to convict someone. His primary question is, “Does negligence (for some crimes, e.g., sexual assault) provide what is needed if we are to say not just that the defendant did (or omitted) x but also that he or she did so culpably?” He states that negligence itself has “an air of innocence” that sets it apart from other mens rea, like recklessness. Many have been pulled over for reckless driving. Baron argues that while they are driving recklessly, the thought crosses their mind of “I’ll do it anyway despite the risks.” The act of recklessness has an an air of disregard for the rules that negligence lacks. Baron uses the situation of Ruth and Sam. They are bathing their young child and a guest arrives for their dinner party. They then forgot about their child and it drowns. Their forgetfulness is an act of negligence, but was not committed purposefully. This forgetfulness is the innocence that Baron argues. Nobody can predict what they will forget. Negligence is more of an epistemic failure than a wrongful act. Overall, Baron argues that negligence is not culpable through mens rea.
Yaffe in his article still discusses mens rea, however he argues why it is necessary through a numerical argument. Yaffe’s situation is a new bill in Congress that would pass, “a knowledge of illegality provision: a fairly narrowly identified class of crimes would be taken to require for guilt proof of knowledge of the illegality of one’s conduct.” These crimes would then need mens rea in order to convict an individual. Yaffe states, “numerical argument can, under certain constrained circumstances, support a legislative definition of a particular crime that either does or does not include mens rea.” His numerical argument even supports strict liability with non-extreme numbers. The main point Yaffe aims to get across apart from the strength of numerical arguments, is that conviction without mens rea is significant, and most likely wrong.
While both articles discuss the same topic of mens rea, each has a seperate focus. Baron focuses on negligence and Yaffe argues the importance of mens rea. Yaffe, of course, utilized a numerical argument to support his claims. Baron, on the other hand, mainly used hypothetical situations to support his claim. The two authors would most likely agree with each other. Yaffe would say that in order for someone to be convicted due to negligence, mens rea would need to be established. Baron would then state that you cannot establish mens rea for negligence. That someone would then be innocent.
These two articles give two different sides of the principle of mens rea. The need for the principle and how the principle is also not needed.
