Corpus delicti vs Canadian [Constituents of a Crime]

[Dynamo Joe]

Excerpts from Marc's video
1] a someone is criminally responsible for the act
2] a certain result has been produced

or

1]fact of the injury loss or harm
2]the existence of criminal agency as it's cause

--------------------------------
I've been digging around the Canadian side of things whether it makes any difference or not, I don't know, just find some wording differences.

I haven't found the actual words "Corpus delecti", so far only found [Constituents of a Crime] 
If I dig more, im sure i'll find "corpus delecti" referenced somewhere in Canuck legal land.

Constituents of a Crime:  A crime may be divided into 2 elements:
1] The prohibited conduct or act (actus rea)
2] The required mental element (MENS REA).

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC818985">http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/inde ... 1SEC818985</a><!-- m -->
Mens rea ("guilty mind") is a difficult concept. It is not defined in the Criminal Code and in Canada, depending upon the particular offence, the prosecution may be required to prove a state of mind that may include either intention (the most common state of mind required to be proven in criminal cases), advertent negligence, knowledge, recklessness, wilful blindness or more specific states of mind contemplated by such words as "maliciously" or "fraudulently."

In regulatory offences, the law distinguishes 3 different forms of the mental element.(MENS REA)
1st Class:  If the legislation uses words such as "wilfully" or "intentionally," the legislature is presumed to have intended that the mental element required is an intent to commit the prohibited act.

2nd Class:  Those relating to "highway traffic", it is only necessary that the accused knows that his acts or omissions may result in the offence being committed.

But the Charter has impacted on the mental element required for so-called "strict liability" offences. The Supreme Court has held that where an offence carries with it the potential for imprisonment, if the accused has diligently, though unsuccessfully, attempted to avoid the prohibited action then he or she cannot be convicted of it. Such a conviction would offend fundamental justice.

3rd Class:  (strict liability offences) requires no mental element whatsoever and there is consequently no necessity of proving any fault on the part of the accused; the Crown need only prove that the accused was responsible for the prohibited act.


My question is...do the 3 classes make it more difficult for a guy like me to go into court using a script, make it more difficult to question the court?
Example:  2nd Class:  Those relating to "highway traffic", it is only necessary that the accused knows that his acts or omissions may result in the offence being committed.
What kind of questions can the prosecutor ask me to prove his point?

[Darren Dirt]

Dynamo Joe Wrote:I haven't found the actual words "Corpus delecti", so far only found [Constituents of a Crime] 
If I dig more, im sure i'll find "corpus delecti" referenced somewhere in Canuck legal land.

Have you searched simply "corpus delecti" "Canada" or "corpus delecti" "Canadian" ? Also try the other spelling: "corpus delicti" "Canada" or "corpus delicti" "Canadian" (it seems most Google results are about half and half on the "lict" vs. "lect" spelling)

[Darren Dirt]

Your point being???

*confused*



...perhaps helpful would be this "justice/due process" resource I just found. Impressive site overall, with some Bastiat writings linked, but not enough Spooner articles

[Marc Stevens]

This is a sneak-peek from the new book which will have a cross-reference to Canadian, English, Australian and New Zealand law:

“The violation of any legal right, committed knowingly, constitutes, prima facie, a “cause of action.””  Sleuter v. Scott, [1914], 6 W.W.R. 451.

“The word “action” according to the legal term, is a proceeding by which one party seeks in a court of justice to enforce some right against, or to restrain the commission of some wrong by, another party.  It includes both civil and criminal proceedings.”  Dorosh v. Bentwood Chair & Table Co., [1939] 2 W.W.R. 150; 47 Man.R. 133 (C.A.).  (emphasis mine)

It all centers on the violation of a legal right.  I like how the Canadian psychopaths admitted it includes criminal proceedings. 

[Darren Dirt]

[i feel so special]OOOooo! A sneak preview of the next cult classic!!!!!!!![/i feel so special]  :wacky:

[NonEntity]

Darren Dirt Wrote:Your point being???

*confused*

My own reaction as well.  For some strange reason I chose on this rare occasion to be polite enough to not make a stink.  Or maybe it was just sloth on my part.  Yeah... it musta been sloth.

- NonE

[NonEntity]

marc Wrote:This is a sneak-peek from the new book which...

Perhaps in the distant future the short list will be:

Thomas Jefferson
Lysander Spooner
Marc Stevens


- NonE