generally agree that the imposition of criminal liability requires at the very least
some form of conduct controlled by the perpetrator.
7.5.1 Offenses of Commission
However, the act requirement has caused some doctrinal frictions because of the
long-standing practice of defining action by looking at its superficial outward
manifestation: the movements of limbs. Traditionally, action in criminal law has
been defined as “willed bodily movements.” This theory is based on the dualistic
concept of man as creatures ofanimus(mind) andcorpus(body). In other words,
the animus, i.e. the human will, is seen as the cause of physical action as willed
bodily movements. The problems with this definition are manifold. Foremost, the
reliance on the joinder of movement and will presupposes a human being as the
origin of action. However, in modern society, many legal systems also impose
punishment on corporations or other organizations for wrongdoing committed by
these “legal entities.” Just think of a company that intentionally pollutes the
groundwater in order to cut costs. The conduct of these legal entities clearly does
not fit into the description of conduct as willed bodily movements.
Tripartite (civil law) Bipartite (common law)- Offence definition
a. Objective elementb. Subjective element- Actus reus
-Was there an act/omission,-which is wrongful?- Wrongdoing
3. Blameworthiness
2. Mens rea
a. Descriptive aspect:
Was there intention or
negligence?b. Normative aspect:
Was the perpetrator to
blame?Fig. 7.1 The bipartite and tripartite systems
132 J. Keiler et al.