In the case......

Defandant = acuzat, inculpat = the accused ( folosita pt drept penal)

Immaterial = irelevant

To cause harm = a aduce prejudicii

In order to = ca sa

In cazul unor infractiuni, precum functionarea ilegala a unei afaceri fara licenta,este irelevant
daca fapta aduce prejudicii altora. In alte cazuri, fapta acuzatului trebuie sa fie cauza suficient de
directa a prejudiciului adus altcuiva ca sa atraga raspunderea penala, ca in cazul omuciderii.

Starea mentala nu necesita sa fii constient sau sa fii sigur ca esti vinovat. In majoritatea
infractiunilor este suficient ca acuzatul a comis cu buna stiinta fapta penala indiferent de motiv sau
rele intentii. In anumite cazuri o anumita stare mentala este necesara, precum necesitatea ca o
omucidere sa fie premeditata pentru a se incadra la crima. In anumite cazuri existenta unei intentii
specifice este cea care diferentiaza actiunea comisa de alte abateri, Asa cum un atac cu intentia de a
ucide se distinge prin acea intentie de un atac obisnuit sau un atac cu intentia de jaf.

Exercise 5

1. A crime generally consists of two elements: (a) an act or omission and (b)
a mental state
2. No, Mental state does not require an awareness or knowledge of guilt
3. A homicide has to be with malice aforethought to constitute murder
4.

Ex 6

1. The defandant’s intent is very important when the seriessnes of his act is accessed.
A cauza prejudicii = to cause harm
A raspunde in fata legii = to be legally liable
2. When you cause somebody harm directly, ypu became legally liable.
3. The constitutive element of the crime are always taked in consideretion by the defense
lawyer
4. „Your owner, The defandeents menthal state, at the moment the crime was committed,
didn’t allow him to discern betwen right and wrong anymore.
5. The attcker’s intend was just to rob his victim, not to kill his victim.

Ex 7

1. Fapta reprobabila = criminal act

Who commited this criminal act?
2. How serious is the crime commited by the acuse?
3. For how many years is he going to be sent to prison?
4. What intencion does the defence lawyer as strategy for the trial?
5. Is the defandant aware of his guilt?