Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea. Provide a rationale to support your position Mens rea refers to the state of mind of a person and whether they are aware that their actions are criminal. Actus rea, on the other hand, describes the physical act (crime) itself. To determine whether a conviction is feasible, one rule stands – an act only makes a person guilty if their mind is also guilty (Hollin, 2013). The law comes in when a criminal offense has been committed. It is up to the court to make a judgment after determining the mens rea of the perpetrator. In some instances, a person may commit a crime, for example, get involved in an accident while driving and kill someone in the process. In another situation, a person may plot to kill someone by knocking them down as he or she walks down the street. These two cases are very different. The former is manslaughter while the latter is murder. If the perpetrator does not have the required mens rea for the action, it means that there was no direct intent to engage in the actus rea. A conviction is also feasible if the purpose was oblique. In the first instance, the perpetrator may have been aware of the consequences of his or her actions but did not directly desire them. Oblique intent can also be said to be a form of recklessness (Malik, 2014). For a conviction to be obtained there has to be a direct link between intent and the actus rea. The referred means that a sentence cannot be feasible if the perpetrator does not have the required mens rea. A human brain can understand the consequences of a person’s actions. If one assumes this, but still proceeds with their actions knowingly, then they deserve to be convicted. If they have no ill intentions, then a conviction is not feasible. Explain the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Next, support or criticize the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad To be able to differentiate between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity, one has to first understand the concept of immunity. Immunity can be defined as the state of being exempt from specific rules and procedures despite criminal behavior. Diplomatic immunity is extended to envoys who work in foreign countries. For instance, they are exempted from taxes and the rule of law and cannot be arrested in a foreign country. Legislative immunity, on the other hand, is the exemption that is extended to the members of parliament with regards to prosecution. This immunity is only valid within the period in which they carry out their legislative duties. They are, thus, not liable for any omissions or actions that were done while they were in office. The only way that a legislator can be prosecuted is if the immunity is lifted by the Supreme Court. From the definitions, it is clear that diplomatic immunity is effective for diplomats outside their country whereas legislative immunity is effective for legislators in an office within their state. Diplomatic immunity is significant in that it protects America from being pressurized through blackmail. Towards this end, therefore, it can be argued that immunity is a sym