Most states follow the Model Penal Code and recognize the following 4 legal terms of criminal misconduct: intent should not be confused with motive, which is why the defendant commits the criminal act or actus reus. Motive can create intent, support a defense, and be used to determine conviction. However, the motive alone does not represent a mens rea and does not serve as a substitute for criminal intent. To prove the general intent, the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted intentionally in the sense that he was aware of what he was doing. In the case of crimes of general intent, the mere commission of declared indictable offences demonstrates the criminal intent necessary to maintain a conviction. For example, a defendant may be found guilty of illegally flaying an alligator if he or she is simply in possession of an alligator that has not been adequately skinned. This is because a jury can derive the required general intent from the plot alone. Examples of crimes of general intent include: Unconditional intent: An expected result of a person based on the consequence of his or her actions. Modern criminal law approaches analysis a little differently.
Using a framework of the American Law Institute`s model penal code, murder is a “completed” offense because it prohibits any “intentional” or “conscious” behavior that causes and therefore leads to the death of another person. “Targeted” in this sense means that the actor had a conscious goal or a goal that the result (i.e. the death of another person) can be achieved. “Knowledge” means that the actor was aware or virtually certain that death would occur, but had no purpose or desire for it to occur. Many States still adhere to the old terminology, relying on the terms “intentional” to cover both types of mens rea: “targeted” and “knowing”. [6] Specific intentional crimes are criminal laws that require more precise mental states than mere intent, knowledge, or general recklessness. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, an element of these crimes involves the intent to achieve a certain result or knowledge of a particular fact.2 An attempted crime is also a crime. They are called inchoate crimes because the commission of the crime has not yet taken place. The execution of the offence is not necessary for the accused to be held criminally responsible.
However, the intention to commit the crime is an element of the crime. In this case, the question was whether the wording of the law “with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm” applied to the unconditional or conditional intent of a defendant. The court noted that although the construction of the sentence suggests that Congress “wanted to provide a federal penalty only for carjackings in which the author actually attempted to injure or kill the driver. that a reasonable reading of the CarJacking Act suggests that Congress intended to criminalize a wider range of behavior than attempts to attack or kill during car thefts. [6] The court therefore upheld Holloway`s conviction and held that a defendant`s conditional intent may be an element of a federal crime, depending on the context and purpose of the law. Mens rea is divided into three categories: general intent, specific intent, recklessness/criminal negligence. In addition, there is a category of crimes for which no element of mens rea is required. These are called endangerment offences. Misconduct is an offence for which responsibility is assumed without regard to the knowledge or intentions of the accused. [1] “Accidents happen.
Sometimes they happen to people who commit crimes with loaded weapons. Read Dean v. U.S., 129 pp. Ct. 1849 (2009)), available at this link: scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10945987555184039397&q= Dean+v.+U.S.&hl=en&as_sdt=2.5. Specific intent refers to a special mental element that goes beyond any required mental state in relation to the actus reus of the crime. [2] Specific intent is a term used to describe a state of mind that exists when a defendant objectively desired a certain outcome in order to follow his or her action. The prosecution must prove that the defendant acted with the intention of achieving a specific objective, as well as with the intention to commit the unlawful acts. No specific intent can be inferred from the commission of the act, and specific evidence is required to prove that this element is fulfilled. .