Tweet
Compliments of wikipedia:
mens rea; Noun>>criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge that the act is illegal)
In the criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime.
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea.
A range of words is used to represent shades of intention in the various criminal laws around the world. The most serious crime of murder, for example, traditionally expressed the mens rea element as malice aforethought, and the interpretations of malice, "maliciously" and "wilfully" vary between pure intention and recklessness depending on the state and the seriousness of the offence.
A person intends a consequence when he or she foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, will be achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously, whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another.
Offences of basic and of specific intent
In some states, a distinction is made between an offence of basic (sometimes termed "general") intent and an offence of specific intent.
Offences requiring basic intent specify a mens rea element that is no more than the intentional or reckless commission of the actus reus.
A limited number of offences are defined to require a further element in addition to basic intent, and this additional element is termed specific intent. There are two classes of such offences:
(a) Some legislatures decide that particular criminal offences are sufficiently serious that the mens rea requirement must be drafted to demonstrate more precisely where the fault lies. Thus, in addition to the conventional mens rea of intention or recklessness, a further or additional element is required. For example, in English law, section 18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 defines the actus reus as causing grievous bodily harm but requires that this be performed:
unlawfully and maliciously — the modern interpretation of "malice" for these purposes is the modern "recklessly" and the sui generis rule of statutory interpretation gives "unlawfully" the same meaning; and
the intent either to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist lawful arrest.
The rule in cases involving such offences is that the basic element can be proved in the usual way, but the element of specific intent must be shown using a more subjective than objective test so that the legislature's express requirement can be seen to be satisfied.
(b) The inchoate offences such as attempt and conspiracy require specific intent in a slightly different sense. The rationale for the existence of criminal laws is as a deterrent to those who represent a danger to society. If an accused has actually committed the full offence, the reality of the danger has been demonstrated. But, where the commission of the actus reus is in the future and the accused is merely acting in anticipation of committing the full offence at some time in the future, a clear subjective intention to cause the actus reus of the full offence must be demonstrated. Without this specific intent, there is insufficient evidence that the accused is the clear danger as feared because, at any time before the commission of the full offence, the accused may change his or her mind and not continue. Hence, this specific intent must also be demonstrated on a subjective basis.
Direct and oblique intent
This has two applications:
When a person is planning to achieve a given consequence, there may be several intermediate steps that have to be taken before the full result as desired is achieved. It is not open to the accused to pick and choose which of these steps are or are not intended. The accused will be taken to intend the accomplishment of all outcomes necessary to the fulfilment of the overall plan. This concept is distinguishing between the direct intention which is the main aim of the plan, and the oblique intention which covers all the intermediate steps.
Sometimes, by accident, a plan miscarries and the accused achieves one or more unintended consequences. In this situation, the accused is taken to have intended all of the additional consequences as flow naturally from the original plan. This is tested as matters of causation and concurrence, i.e. whether the given consequences were reasonably foreseeable, there is no novus actus interveniens and the relevant mens rea elements were formed before all of the actus reus components were completed.
Transferred intent is a doctrine used in both criminal law and tort law that is applied when the intent to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead. Under the law, the individual causing the harm will be seen as having "intended" the act by means of the "transferred intent" doctrine.
In the criminal law, transferred intent is sometimes explained by stating that the "intent follows the bullet." That is, the intent to kill person A with a bullet will apply even when the bullet kills the unintended victim, person B
mens rea; Noun>>criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act (including knowledge that the act is illegal)
In the criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime.
Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea.
A range of words is used to represent shades of intention in the various criminal laws around the world. The most serious crime of murder, for example, traditionally expressed the mens rea element as malice aforethought, and the interpretations of malice, "maliciously" and "wilfully" vary between pure intention and recklessness depending on the state and the seriousness of the offence.
A person intends a consequence when he or she foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, will be achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously, whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another.
Offences of basic and of specific intent
In some states, a distinction is made between an offence of basic (sometimes termed "general") intent and an offence of specific intent.
Offences requiring basic intent specify a mens rea element that is no more than the intentional or reckless commission of the actus reus.
A limited number of offences are defined to require a further element in addition to basic intent, and this additional element is termed specific intent. There are two classes of such offences:
(a) Some legislatures decide that particular criminal offences are sufficiently serious that the mens rea requirement must be drafted to demonstrate more precisely where the fault lies. Thus, in addition to the conventional mens rea of intention or recklessness, a further or additional element is required. For example, in English law, section 18 Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 defines the actus reus as causing grievous bodily harm but requires that this be performed:
unlawfully and maliciously — the modern interpretation of "malice" for these purposes is the modern "recklessly" and the sui generis rule of statutory interpretation gives "unlawfully" the same meaning; and
the intent either to cause grievous bodily harm or to resist lawful arrest.
The rule in cases involving such offences is that the basic element can be proved in the usual way, but the element of specific intent must be shown using a more subjective than objective test so that the legislature's express requirement can be seen to be satisfied.
(b) The inchoate offences such as attempt and conspiracy require specific intent in a slightly different sense. The rationale for the existence of criminal laws is as a deterrent to those who represent a danger to society. If an accused has actually committed the full offence, the reality of the danger has been demonstrated. But, where the commission of the actus reus is in the future and the accused is merely acting in anticipation of committing the full offence at some time in the future, a clear subjective intention to cause the actus reus of the full offence must be demonstrated. Without this specific intent, there is insufficient evidence that the accused is the clear danger as feared because, at any time before the commission of the full offence, the accused may change his or her mind and not continue. Hence, this specific intent must also be demonstrated on a subjective basis.
Direct and oblique intent
This has two applications:
When a person is planning to achieve a given consequence, there may be several intermediate steps that have to be taken before the full result as desired is achieved. It is not open to the accused to pick and choose which of these steps are or are not intended. The accused will be taken to intend the accomplishment of all outcomes necessary to the fulfilment of the overall plan. This concept is distinguishing between the direct intention which is the main aim of the plan, and the oblique intention which covers all the intermediate steps.
Sometimes, by accident, a plan miscarries and the accused achieves one or more unintended consequences. In this situation, the accused is taken to have intended all of the additional consequences as flow naturally from the original plan. This is tested as matters of causation and concurrence, i.e. whether the given consequences were reasonably foreseeable, there is no novus actus interveniens and the relevant mens rea elements were formed before all of the actus reus components were completed.
Transferred intent is a doctrine used in both criminal law and tort law that is applied when the intent to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurt instead. Under the law, the individual causing the harm will be seen as having "intended" the act by means of the "transferred intent" doctrine.
In the criminal law, transferred intent is sometimes explained by stating that the "intent follows the bullet." That is, the intent to kill person A with a bullet will apply even when the bullet kills the unintended victim, person B
Comment