Revisiting Mens Rea in Modern Criminal Jurisprudence: Theory, Practice, and Reform

Abstract

This article revisits mens rea in modern criminal jurisprudence, examining its theoretical foundations and practical challenges amid evolving forms of criminality. Using doctrinal and comparative analysis, the study finds growing ambiguity and overreliance on objective liability standards, advocating clearer statutory definitions and contextual reforms to preserve culpability and fairness Mens rea   the mental element of criminal liability lies at the heart of criminal justice, shaping how culpability is assessed in both theory and practice. As societies evolve, so too do the contours of criminal law, creating new challenges in defining, proving, and applying mens rea. This article critically examines the mens rea doctrine in modern criminal jurisprudence, tracing its theoretical foundations, highlighting practical shortcomings, and exploring avenues for reform. Drawing on comparative perspectives and emerging legal challenges particularly in technology-driven crimes this research argues for principled adjustments to ensure fairness, clarity, and adaptability in criminal responsibility.