"Mens rea explained - the Guilty Mind"

Why Is Criminal Law So Obsessed With a “Guilty Mind”?

Ah yes, mens rea—Latin for “guilty mind,” and modern law’s favorite philosophical toy. Not “Did you do it?” but “Did you mean to?” Because apparently, in the grand theatre of justice, intention is everything. Or nothing. Depending on the mood. 😄

Let’s unpack this.

A guilty mind, they say, is the cornerstone of criminal liability. You must not only commit the crime—you must want to commit it. Or at least know you’re doing something bad. But here’s the twist: in half the cases these days, the accused can’t even remember what happened. Blackouts, dissociation, trauma, or just good old-fashioned denial. So what then? Is forgetting, the new innocence? 😕

And who, pray tell, is going to stand up in court and say, “Yes, Your Honour, I had a guilty mind. I was positively thrilled to commit arson.” No one. That’s who.

But wait—motive doesn’t matter, they say. Intent matters. Which is odd, because motive is the only thing that keeps the rest of us sane. The why. The reason. The thread that makes chaos legible. Without it, we’re just watching people hurt each other for no reason, and calling it jurisprudence.

Don't you hate that part. The part where a crime is committed, and we’re told we’ll never know why. Because it doesn’t matter.

But let me explain why motives doesn't matter.......

Because the justice system believes you must want to commit the crime. You wanted to stab that man. It was in your head. That’s enough.

Why you wanted to stab him? Maybe you were jilted. Maybe you were abused. Maybe he said something vile. But none of those matters. Not here.

This isn’t the church. The courtroom isn’t a confessional booth where your reasons are weighed, and your sins forgiven. The system doesn’t ask why. It just assumes your reasoning—whatever it was—led you to do something horrendous. Therefore, your mind was already guilty before your hand ever moved.

But wait—doesn’t that contradict the jury system?

Twelve good citizens sit in judgment. The lawyers parade motive like it’s the star of the show. “She was desperate.” “He was provoked.” “They were cornered.” You hear it. You nod. You feel something.

But then you’re told: Don’t let motive sway you.

Excuse me? 😯

You heard it. You felt it. But you can’t apply it? 

So motive matters. But also, doesn’t. It’s theatre. It’s seasoning. It’s the parsley on the plate—not the meal. That doesn't matter!!

Yes. Hell yes, it matters!! 😠

It’s the only thing that ever did.

So I suggest we reform the law and introduce a third sacred pillar of criminal justice: the Motive Rea.

Yes, mens rea is the guilty mind. Actus reus is the guilty act. And motive rea? Well, I have no clue what rea means, but it sounds Latin and therefore legally binding😜.

Let’s be honest—if we’re already pretending to read minds (mens rea), and we’re definitely counting actions (actus reus), then why not include the one thing that actually makes sense: why the hell it happened?

Because motive isn’t just courtroom seasoning. It’s the main course. It’s the emotional gravy. It’s the part where the audience leans in and says, “Ah, so that’s why she stabbed him with the letter opener.”

So yes, let’s add motive rea to the mix. And if Latin scholars object, we’ll just say it’s a dialect from the school of common sense and sanity.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this blog are entirely my own, unless they were whispered to me by a blindfolded statue holding scales. This content is intended for entertainment, satire, and occasional legal provocation. It does not constitute legal advice, moral guidance, or a substitute for actual courtroom drama. Any resemblance to real cases, judges, or ducks holding protest signs is purely coincidental—or a sign that the justice system needs a nap.

Side effects of reading may include: righteous indignation, spontaneous Latin usage, and an overwhelming desire to ask “But why?” in inappropriate settings.