Why must an act be voluntary to be a crime?

Answer 1

You can still be prosecuted if you are negigent or reckless and hurt someone, even if you didn't intend for them to get hurt.

Answer 2

Most people confuse intent ("mens rea" the mental state required for many crimes) with the requirement that an action requirement ("actus rea") not be involuntary.

Most crimes require some type of culpable mental state, either intentional or reckless, or acting with malice or depraved indifference. Some allow for criminal prosecution based on negligent (careless) conduct, while a few crimes are strict liability (even if you didn't know what you were doing was illegal).

Negligence is also different than recklessness, BTW. Recklessness requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, and is thus a subjective standard. Negligence, in contrast, is based on an objective standard, where the person's conduct falls below the standard of reasonableness that would be expected. Torts (civil wrongs) allow for liability based on simple negligence.

Most crimes require at least gross negligence, where the conduct was blatantly deviant from a reasonable standard of care. But even with gross negligence, its an objective standard, so it would apply even if the person didn't realize they were doing anything wrong. That's why reckless disregard is always a more serious crime, since it requires the person to have consciously disregarded a known risk, as opposed to negligence which doesn't require the person be aware of the risk.

That covers mental state, which varies with the crime. However, all crimes also require some sort of physical action or conduct. In other words, you can't convict a person based purely on their mental state. That physical act may be as simple as being in possession of something, or asking (soliciting) someone to perform a crime. But something beyond mental state is required.

In almost every case, that physical act must be voluntary. That has nothing to do with the level of intent or the goal when performing the action. It means the person must have been in control of their body when the action was performed.

To be clear, this is difference than the concept of voluntary (as a mental state) such as when you perform an action under duress or threat. In that case, the action being performed are physically voluntary, even if you do not want to preform them.

Let's look at a couple examples. Let's say you have a neurological condition like Parkinson's that causes occasional muscle spasms and tremors. Those are not voluntary movements.

Let's say you are just standing and someone walks by you. At the time the other person is passing by, your arm moves and hits the other person. If that arm movement was voluntary, that would be battery. But if the arm movement was involuntary because of a neurological misfire and resulting muscle spasm, then that would not be battery because the action (striking the other person) was not voluntary.

Another example. Let's say you break through a plate glass window into a store when the store is closed. If that breaking and entering was voluntary movement, that you might be guilty of vandalism, trespassing, or maybe burglary. But if you broke through the window because someone picked you up and threw you (without your consent), that's not a voluntary action, so you are not culpable.

Returning to the duress example, let's you chose to jump through the window because someone else was pointing a gun at your head, and was going to shoot you if you didn't break the window. The action is still voluntary, though you don't have the mental intent to commit any crime. This is an example of the justification defense of duress, which gives a valid reason for why you should not be guilty for intentionally performing the voluntary action.

The core reason all crimes require a voluntary act is based on public policy. It would be unreasonable to punish someone when they did not act voluntarily. Why? Because there is nothing to be gained by punishment. Since there was no voluntary action, punishment would serve no deterrent to prevent further crimes.

Answer 3

If someone forced you by gunpoint to drive on the other lane because he has cops chasing him and he has just kidnapped you...should you get the traffic citation.

UH no...in our society we believe that in order for you to commit a crime it must have done it through voluntary actions. If not then why should you be held responsible for things that were not under your control.

Now the word VOLUNTARY's definition according to the law is an entirely different subject matter. If you were born in a life of crime: father was a nut militia told you about evil government...at age 13 you go in and start killing...people would argue that it was not voluntary others would say yes, courts differ in different states and counties.

By the way the voluntariness of a crime and the mens rea (the actual thought of doing a crime on purpose) are entirely different. And that is another whole big mess.

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Why must an act be voluntary to be a crime?

Answer 5

Why do you think? Would you want people sitting in jail for not knowingly or intentionally doing an unlawful action. Contrary to some of the answers given, harming some one by a simple negligent act is not a crime. For negligence to constitute a crime, a person must be grossly negligent to a point that they willfully and wantonly disregard the life of some one. Driving drunk 70 miles per hour in a 15 mile per hour school zone with school children present would qualify. You didn't intend to hit a child, but your actions were in total disregard forr the lives fo the children. Driving through that same zone at 25 mph may be negligent, but not grossly negligent.

Answer 6

of course it is a voluntary thing to commit a crime. you never mean to accidentally do something bad. That is why it is an accident you see.

Answer 7

I think our (USA) legal definition is about as close as we are going to get to my own feelings on the matter. Except for capital punishment, I do not think that is justfied. So, I need the distinction between the legal definition of murder and the more inclusive label of 'killing'. Killing that is not murder that I think is 'justifiable'? ... self defence or defense of another in immediate danger Killing that may be excuseable? ... temporary insanity (as in a traumatized state like the father in your example) But even in that case, I would not excuse cold blooded pre-meditated killing by that father. I'm satisfied to let the courts decide. And I am certainly opposed to medals for killing. Yuck.

Answer 8

Thats not true. If you accidentally kill someone, its still some form of manslaughter.