A baby does not know it is doing evil and thus mens rea is met as it does not have an evil intent or evil mind.
Lets just clear this point up. if the mens rea element of an offence is met then the crime is complete and guilt can be assigned. I'm beginning to think that you don't know what you're talking about...
An adult/Eve, who is deceived, in this case, not knowing the button is deadly, also meets mens rea because she did not have an evil intent or evil mind.
As stated, at length, mens rea is not always necessary.
Tell me where you can find the mens rea requirement in the commandment.
I'll help you.
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die
I've bolded the actus reus. The mens rea will be in the rest of the commandment if it is there.Hint: the bit in italics is the penalty
Before you start banging on about the "spirit" of the law requiring mens rea I'll point out that your wrong (again, see strict liability).
If there is any "spirit" of the law it is the rebuttable
presumption of innocence. This is referred to as the Golden Thread.
I've bolded the important bit of the "spirit" of the law for you.
Show me where, in any jurisdiction, the mens rea requirement is absolute.
The deceiver would be assigned all guilt as that would be the only mind that had evil intent.
The scenarios are exact.
Lets consider this for a moment.
Your primary question seems to be "Was the act a voluntary act?"
You are saying not as eve was deceived/incapable of forming mens rea.
You compare this to what is clearly an involuntary act of a baby accidentally pressing a button.
Eve had to go to the tree, pick a fruit from the tree and then eat the fruit.
Are you saying this is the same as a baby randomly waving it's limbs?
There are 2 possible answers
- Yes, eve was acting involuntarily. Being fully formed but incapable of voluntary action would render eve an automaton. Therefore intent is irrelevant. Your OP is moot.
- No, eve was acting voluntarily (but as you argue) under outside influence. Where in the commandment is the mens rea requirement? If it is not there your OP is moot.
Funnily enough eve then goes on to influence adam. If we take your staring point of innocence lost then by influencing the edens very own himbo doesn't eve then take the role of deceiver and in your own words;
The deceiver would be assigned all guilt
Was eve kicked out of paradise for eating the fruit or for, with knowledge aforethought, persuading adam to eat it thereby committing the same offence
No, it isn't a good buy as I haven't bought it.