|
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. Image File history File links Scale_of_justice. ...
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ...
This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
Actus reus is the action (or inaction, in the case of criminal negligence and similar crimes which are sometimes called acts of omission) which, in combination with the mens rea (guilty mind), produces criminal liability in common law based criminal law jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom. ...
In law, causation is the name given to the process of testing whether defendants should be fixed with liability for the outcome to their acts and omissions that injure or cause loss to others. ...
For other uses, see concurrency. ...
The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ...
In English criminal law, intention is one of the types of mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) that, when accompanied by an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) constitutes a crime. ...
In the criminal law, recklessness (sometimes also termed wilful blindness) is one of the three possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the Latin for guilty mind). To commit an offence of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both an actus reus...
Willful blindess is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts which would render him liable. ...
Criminal negligence, in the realm of criminal common law, is a legal term of art for a state of mind which is careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or reckless; it is the mens rea part of a crime which, if occurring simultaneously with the actus reus, gives rise to criminal...
It has been suggested that presumed knowledge of the law be merged into this article or section. ...
The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity. ...
In the criminal law, corporate liability determines the extent to which a corporation as a fictitious person can be liable for the acts and omissions of the natural persons it employs. ...
In criminal law, strict liability is liability where mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) does not have to be proved in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for guilty act) although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the...
The term felony is used for very serious crimes, whereas misdemeanors are considered to be less serious offenses. ...
In many common law jurisdictions (e. ...
A hybrid offence or dual offence are the special offences in Canadian criminal law where the prosecution may choose whether to proceed with a summary offence or an indictment. ...
A misdemeanors (or misdemeanour), in many common law legal systems, is a lesser criminal act. ...
Infraction as a general term means a violation of a rule or local ordinance or regulation, promise or obligation. ...
A lesser included offense, in criminal law, is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose liability are also elements found in a more serious crime. ...
In many common law jurisdictions, the crime of battery involves an injury or other contact upon the person of another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm. ...
Mayhem, under the common law of crimes, consisted of the intentional and wanton removal of a body part that would handicap a persons ability to defend themselves in combat. ...
In the United States, larceny is a common law crime involving stealing. ...
The Skyline Parkway Motel in Afton, Virginia after an arson fire on July 9, 2004. ...
False pretenses is a common law crime. ...
Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to this person, reputation, or property. ...
Forgery is the process of making or adapting objects or documents (see false document), with the intention to deceive. ...
To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ...
Modern Obstruction of Justice, in a common law state, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. ...
Bribery is a crime implying a sum or gift given alters the behaviour of the person in ways not consistent with the duties of that person. ...
Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing. ...
Misprision of felony, under the common law of England, was the crime of failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities. ...
An inchoate offense is a crime. ...
Solicitation is a crime; it is an inchoate offense that consists of a person inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime. ...
The crime of attempt occurs when a person does an act amounting to more than mere preparation for a criminal offense, with specific intent to commit a crime, if that act tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended. ...
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. ...
An accessory is a person who assists in or conceals a crime, but does not actually participate in the commission of the crime. ...
Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated the criminal law. ...
A contract is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides a remedy. ...
In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. ...
Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common law legal system. ...
In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ...
The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ...
The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ...
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ...
The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ...
Strict liability is a legal doctrine in tort law that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea. ...
Definitions
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. Malice Aforethought is a 1931 murder mystery novel written by Anthony Berkeley Cox, using the name Francis Iles. ...
Malice is a legal term referring to a partys intention to do injury to another party. ...
In the criminal law, recklessness (sometimes also termed wilful blindness) is one of the three possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the Latin for guilty mind). To commit an offence of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both an actus reus...
For the purposes of Public International Law and Private International Law, a state is a defined group of people, living within defined territorial boundaries and subject, more or less, to an autonomous legal system exercising jurisdiction through properly constituted courts. ...
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 considered, rightly or wrongly, 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. Culpability (Blameworthiness) is the state of deserving to be blamed for a crime or offence. ...
Look up Punishment in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ...
The test of intention The policy issue for those who administer the criminal justice system is that, when planning their actions, people may be aware of many probable and possible consequences. Obviously, all of these consequences could be prevented through the simple expedient either of ceasing the given activity or of taking action rather than refraining from action. So the decision to continue with the current plan means that all the foreseen consequences are to some extent intentional, i.e. within and not against the scope of each person's intention. But, is the test of culpability based on purely a subjective measure of what is in a person's mind, or does a court measure the degree of fault by using objective tools?
For example, suppose that A, a jealous wife, discovers that her husband is having a sexual affair with B. Wishing only to drive B away from the neighbourhood, she goes to B's house one night, pours petrol on and sets fire to the front door. B dies in the resulting fire. A is shocked and horrified. It did not occur to her that B might be physically in danger and there was no conscious plan in her mind to injure B when the fire began. But when A's behaviour is analysed, B's death must be intentional. If A had genuinely wished to avoid any possibility of injury to B, she would not have started the fire. Or, if verbally warning B to leave was not an option, she should have waited until B was seen to leave the house before starting the fire. As it was, she waited until night when it was more likely that B would be at home and there would be fewer people around to raise the alarm.
On a purely subjective basis, A intended to render B's house uninhabitable, so a reasonably substantial fire was required. The reasonable person would have foreseen a probability that people would be exposed to the risk of injury. Anyone in the house, neighbours, people passing by, and members of the fire service would all be in danger. The court therefore assesses the degree of probability that B or any other person might be in the house at that time of the night. The more certain the reasonable person would have been, the more justifiable it is to impute sufficient desire to convert what would otherwise only have been recklessness into intention to constitute the offence of murder. But if the degree of probability is lower, the court will find only recklessness proved. Some states used to have a rule that if a death occurred during the commission of a felony, sufficient mens rea for murder would automatically be imputed (see felony murder). For the most part, this rule has been abolished and direct evidence of the required mental components is required. Thus, the courts of most states use a hybrid test of intention, combining both subjective and objective elements, for each offence changed. The reasonable man or reasonable person standard is a legal fiction that originated in the development of the common law. ...
Firefighter with an axe A firefighter, sometimes still called a fireman though women have increasingly joined firefighting units, is a person who is trained and equipped to put out fires, rescue people and in some areas provide emergency medical services. ...
The principle of imputation reflects the general public policy underpinning the operation of the law which is that ignorantia juris non excusat, the Latin for ignorance of the law is no excuse. ...
The term felony is used for very serious crimes, whereas misdemeanors are considered to be less serious offenses. ...
The felony murder rule is a legal doctrine according to which anyone who commits, or is found to be involved in, a serious crime (a felony), during which any person dies, is guilty of murder. ...
In English law, s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides a statutory framework within which mens rea is assessed. It states: English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ...
- A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence,
- (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but
- (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances.
Under s8(b) therefore, the jury is allowed a wide latitude in applying a hybrid test to impute intention or foresight (for the purposes of recklessness) on the basis of all the evidence. See Intention in English law. In English criminal law, intention is one of the types of mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) that, when accompanied by an actus reus (Latin for guilty act) constitutes a crime. ...
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, s18 Offences Against The Person 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.
A legislature is a type of representative deliberative assembly with the power to adopt laws. ...
English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ...
This page is a candidate to be copied to Wikisource. ...
Grievous bodily harm or GBH is a phrase used in English criminal law which was introduced in ss18 and 20 Offences Against The Person Act 1861. ...
Pronunciation SOO-eye jen-ER-ihs Sui generis is a (post) Latin expression, literally meaning of its own kind/genus or unique in its characteristics. ...
An inchoate offence is a crime. ...
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. For example, if A wishes to claim on B's life insurance policy so shoots at B who is sitting in a bus, the bullet may have to pass through a window. Thus, even though A may not have desired B's death, it was an inevitable precondition to a claim. Similarly, he may never consciously have considered the damage to the window, but both the murder and the damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 will be intended. This is distinguishing between the direct intention which is the main aim of the plan, and the oblique intention which covers all the intermediate steps. More generally, a person directly intends a consequence when his purpose or aim is to cause it even though he believes that the likelihood of it succeeding is remote. In R v Dadson, for example, the defendant shot at a man whom he wrongly believed to be out of range. In R v Mohan (1975) 2 All ER 193 it was held that direct intention means, "aim or purpose" - "a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the accused's power, the commission of the offence..no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not."
- 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 that 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.
It has been suggested that Life assurance be merged into this article or section. ...
Under English law, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 is the main statute covering damage to property. ...
In law, causation is the name given to the process of testing whether defendants should be fixed with liability for the outcome to their acts and omissions that injure or cause loss to others. ...
For other uses, see concurrency. ...
See also 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. ...
References - Lacey. A Clear Concept of Intention: Elusive or Illusory, (1993) 56 MLR 621.
- Norrie. After Woollin (1999) CLR 532.
- Williams, Glanville. Oblique Intention, (1987) Cambridge Law Journal 417
|
Feeds |
Contact