Intention And Recklessness Essay
The two essential fault elements used in criminal law are intention and recklessness. As long as these two forms of mens rea are concerned, it is not possible to set up liability without the evidence what the defendant foresaw when committing the acts of which the consequences were prohibited. But, what must one foresee and how much of it? These are the central questions of the debate relating to where the dividing line between different types of subjective mens rea should be drawn.
The meaning of intention in criminal law is still unsettled. Clause 1 (a) of the Criminal Law Bill attempts to give a definition: ‘a person acts intentionally regarding a result when it is his purpose to cause it; or although it is not his purpose to cause it, he knows that it would happen in the normal course of events if he were to succeed in some other purpose of causing another result’. Two types of intention, direct/purposive intention and oblique/indirect intention.
Mohan , which is the major authority on intention in the law of criminal attempts defines direct/purposive intention as ‘a decision to bring about, where it lies within the accused’s power… (the relevant consequence) whether the accused desired the consequence or not '. The reason behind such intention is not intention itself but to prove intention exists. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) requires that all mental elements are proved by mention to all evidence.
Direct intention suggests…