Specific Intent In Criminal Law

Decent Essays
The perception of criminal intent in Criminal Liability is known as ‘mens rea’, which means to be wrongful or illegitimate desire. If a human being without having harmful intention causes harm, then that person lacks mens rea and, by this logic, should not be criminally sued. Despite the fact that the approach of mens rea is mostly accepted, complication takes place in implementing it to appropriate cases. Several crimes need a very huge degree for intention, while others need considerably less. Criminal law has tried to clear the intention necessity by making the perception of "specific intent" and "general intent."

Specific intent, in the law, is a perspective which somebody must be into meet the standard for specific sorts of feelings. In such cases, the individual expects to take part in a particular activity and is mindful of the results. Unlawful acts which oblige verification of secific intent are known as specific intent crimes, and they incorporate things
…show more content…
The arraignment must demonstrate, on the other hand, that the charge’s activities were not incidental. General intent is the plan to participate in behavior. Along these lines, for this situation, it is redundant for the state to demonstrate that the litigant planned the exact mischief or the exact result which eventuated. Maybe, the state is obliged to demonstrate that the respondent deliberately and not coincidentally or unintentionally occupied with (his/her) activities. Once in a while mens rea is utilized synonymously with the words general goal, albeit general intent is all the more ordinarily used to portray criminal obligation when a litigant not mean to achieve a specific result. General intent not require a purposeful unlawful activity but rather just that a wrongful demonstration was submitted. Specific intent requires intentional unlawful

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Importance Of Mens Rea

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages

    not of sound mind. The actions of a person, who is not in control of his mind, are not guided by the rational thinking of his brain. He lacks the basic essence of rationality in human beings, such that fundamental maxim of criminal law, i.e, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea meaning an act does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention, comes to his help. Mens Rea is an essential element in every crime. There may be no crime of any nature without an evil mind.…

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Without the presence of one, the prosecution can’t prove the alleged offence against the defendant and therefore the defendant must be acquitted. However in certain cases, the presence of mens rea is not required. Such offences are known as strict liability offences. Actus reus Actus reus is the conduct element of the offence. It consists of all the physical elements of an offence except for those which relate to…

    • 1034 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Offences of strict liability is an act of crime which does not require intention, recklessness or even negligence to one or more elements in the actus reus. In Malaysia, strict liability can be defined as a legal responsibility for damages or injury even if the person is found strictly liable without his fault or negligence. Under Common Law, there are an aversion to impose strict liability most likely because of the absence of mens rea in these offences. A person is not considered guilty of a crime if the act of crime is done without guilty mind. It is called strict liability because the defendant will be convicted even they are completely have no any knowledge of elements of the criminal offence they committed.…

    • 1367 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Strict Liability Offenses

    • 1271 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Offenses such as road traffic, pollution, drugs or weapons cases are often considered strict liability offenses. The principle of strict liability is sometimes regarded as an injustice because a person can still be liable when not at fault or despite their taking all reasonable care. However, it makes the enforcement of certain offenses regarded as quasi-criminal easier and reinforces public safety. 1.4. General Defences When a defendant is charged with an offense, various defences are available to him.…

    • 1271 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The labeling theory had made it more difficult to compare studies and generalizes finding on why individual committed crime. Labeling theory can apply for both good and bad but labeling theory tends to lean toward the bad than the good. It focusses on the negative consequences of an individual as delinquent than the good deed that someone had done. Many theorists believe that informal labels can be very harmful especially young offender, ethnic minorities, and those that lived in poverty. The reason behind their belief is that labeling doesn’t really have any effect on the offender unless they accept those labels and view them as someone who is bad like how they are being label.…

    • 1427 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The benefit of this is that the criminal is punished instead of the crime as it draws focus to the individual’s actions and their mental state at the time the offence was committed. Although the model of individual responsibility has been criticised by the science community for their beliefs on free will and human behaviour not reflecting the current research, the model is an effective and just model that can deliver justice correctly. If, however the model does not deliver the wanted results, an alternative model to use is strict liability, as it punishes offenders in a swift and proficient…

    • 1587 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Importance Of Omission

    • 2058 Words
    • 9 Pages

    A person cannot be punished for thinking criminal thoughts. All crimes require actus reus and the mens rea which is the Latin term for the “guilty act” and “guilty mind”. But to prove whether a crime has been committed, it is usually necessary to show both the actus reus and the mens rea. However, some crimes do not require proof of mens rea; these are known as strict liability crimes. Within the actus reus, there must be both a voluntary act and a consequent result.…

    • 2058 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    • Why do you think a society would address liability for civil wrongs separately from criminal wrongs? First, it is very necessary to understand what “civil wrong and criminal wrong” is, so we can have a better climate to discuss what is at stake. Civil wrong is “An action with a tort, an act against another person or their property, and, a breach of the terms of a contract”. (The law dictionary). On the other hand, a criminal wrong is the breaking of rules or laws for which some governing authority can ultimately prescribe a conviction.…

    • 1286 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    exception or, in the contrary, establishment of legitimacy of an offence, including first of all the establishment of existence or absence of the circumstances eliminating illegality of an offence; • guilt including sanity; special signs of guilt; forms of guilt, to be aware of illegality of an offence, and also establishment of existence or absence of the circumstances eliminating guilt (the excusing circumstances); here it is important to remember that, the guilt at this level does not coincide with intention and negligence in subjective content of criminal offence. In some cases, it is necessary to establish additional conditions of punitiveness, operating at appointment and the execution of the punishment, which assumes the solution of additional questions.…

    • 1146 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The speech must advocate illegal conduct, not just an abstract. The law that proscribe the conduct must not be vague or overbroad. Here, the Sedition Statute is facially overbroad because it failed to distinguished imminent lawbreaking from abstract speech. However, the statute has been narrowly construed to apply only to advocacy…

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays