Intention in Criminology - Essay Example

INTENTION-MOTIVE Intentions means the of mind desiring to do some thing, it may be positive intention or negative intention. An intention to save a person is positive intention and an intention to kill a person is negative intention. The positive intent state of mind results in positive activities the negative intent of mind leads to negative activities. In criminal law the intention is viewed as that of negative intent of mind that is responsible for criminal action. There is no definition for intention in law. It is inferred from the activities and the results of such activities the interpretation or inference of intention is subject proof in the jury. The criminal intention of an accused is to be proved with evidence. It is the interpretation of the jury duly applying the tests. The doctrine of law of murder is of two fold intention and causation. The doctrine of intention in the law of murder is vital doctrine. The doctrine of intention assigns the liability of murder. Intention denotes what is in the mind of the accused at the time of committing the crime and also the effect of the action. The doctrine of intention adjudges and infers the mind of the accused. The intention can be analyzed as direct intention and indirect intention. Direct intention: Direct intention means the aim, object or desire to do an act whose effects or results are prohibited under law as an offence. In this state of mind the person is surely designed and prepared to do some criminal act. An intention to commit murder is an example of direct intention. Indirect intention: Indirect intention is also known as oblique intention. In this state of mind the person does not desire the consequences or the results of his action but he knows that the results of his action, and he does not care for the result, it is due to his recklessness on the results. The direct intention of such person is some thing other but in process the result produces an offensive act. The best example of the oblique intention is that of the extremist activities. The extremist when they want to cause damage to the public property to show their protest against the action of the government they set fire to the public property such as telephone exchanges, railway stations, government buses etc. They know that there will be human loss still they do not care about. The crime of murder is the out come of oblique intention of the extremist and the crime of damage to the public property is the out come of direct intention. The existence of indirect or oblique intention of the person is tested in two ways. The one way is to see whether the consequence of the act is certain, and other one is the person who doing such act certainly knows the consequences of his action. Here the certainty of the consequence and the knowledge of the person about that consequence are important ingredients. When these two tests are fulfilled then the oblique intention exists in the action and the person will be held liable under the crime of oblique intent. These tests were dealt with in decided case of "R v Nedrick (1986) 8 Cr App R(S) 179; [1986] 3 All ER 1" . Intentional crimes: There are some crimes that can be done only intentionally that is to say these crimes can not be done unless there is clear intention to do such crime. Crime of attempts to murder, crime of ulterior intent, crimes of basic intent, crime of specific intent are the intentional crimes. Attempt to murder: "R v Mohan [1976] QB 1; [1975] 2 All ER 193" in this case the defendant committed a crime of attempt to murder by driving at a policeman. The policeman could escape by jumping at last moment and could save his life. The trial judge held it as an act of recklessness. But the appellate court felt it as an attempt to murder and insisted upon the proof of specific intent. Specific intention: Intoxication is the example for crime of Specific intention. Under this the defendant is not allowed to the plea of his drunken and intoxication to protect from the sentence of crime. If crime is established it is the crime of specific intent since an ordinary prudent person knows that a person under intoxication loses his sense is no in a position to understand the consequences of his act still if he is intoxicate the law will not help and no plea is allowed. Basic intention: The crime of basic intent means the crime in which the ingredients of 'mens rea' are related to the ingredients of 'actus reus' and in which there is nothing extra state of mind that the prosecution needs to prove. "DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443; [1976] 2 All ER 142" the defendant was accused of charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The defendant took the plea of his drink and drugs as defense. The plea was rejected and was held liable. Ulterior intention: Burglary is the example of crime of ulterior intention. In ulterior intention the prosecution has to prove extra state of mind. First the tress pass is to be proved then the theft is to be proved. In this intention of tress pass is the 'crime of basic intention' and intention to theft is the 'crime of ulterior intention'. "R v Belfon (1976) 63 Cr App R 59; [1976] 3 All ER 46" Intention and motive how differentiated In a common language intention and motives are used as synonyms one is used for another vise versa, there is no difference in meaning. But in legal language these two words are used with distinctly from each other. Normally motive does not play any role in law. Motive is nothing but a common emotion like jealousy, revenge and greed. Motive is purpose or cause of the action. Intention is the desire to do some unlawful act or crime where as the motive refers to the reason or purpose for which the act is done, motive is an answer for the questions such as what purpose it serves to the person who does What are the benefits it gives either to the doer or any other person What makes the person to do such an act The law made 'intention' distinct from that of 'motive' since in law motive do not play any role or motive is not taken in to consideration while deciding the offence, since some times the motive would be good and positive still the act is offence in law. For instance a patient is suffering from sever and unbearable pain and there is no scope of his survival also, in such condition if any body intentionally kills him to give him relief from such sufferings it is treated as offence of murder though his motive is good and merciful. There fore the motive is not considered in criminal law. The death is caused due to intentional consequence out of intentional act(R v Cox (1992) 12 Butterworths Medico-LegalReports 38 - attempted murder). Such an action is also known as 'doctrine of necessity' another case law is ('R v Steane [1945] KB 997') in this case an actor was accuse of charges of doing 'acts likely to assist the enemy' by entering into the services of the enemy country during the second world war. He has done it with a good motive of saving his family members from concentration camp still he is held liable and his good motive is not considered. Though Motive is not an element in most of offences House of Lords recommended to recognizes or considers motive in some cases where an action is having two effects one positive and the other negative specifically in medical services such as one effect is life giving and another is life taking. ("R v Moor (11 May 1999 Newcastle Crown Court Hooper J") in this case a doctor injected the medicine diamorphine into a patient with a motive to give relief from pain. The doctor knows that the medicine also causes acceleration to death. The jury held it is not murdered and allowed the good motive. "James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751, [1990] 2 All ER 607, [1990] 3 WLR 55, 88 LGR 756, [1990] ICR 544 " This is case on gender discrimination in giving more advantages to female over male. In this case the distinct judges while delivering their judgment on the discrimination discuss the concepts of "Intention and Motive" elaborately. In this case the plaintiff was denied of the privilege of free swimming where as his wife was given though they are of same age. He contended gender discrimination. The trial courts dismissed case saying no discrimination. The aggrieved plaintiff appealed to House of Lords where the case discussed at large and the terms 'intention and motive are elaborately discussed. Lord Griffiths and Lord Lowry while dealing with the case opined that the motive is to give benefits to the women, which is a positive motive, is irrelevant. Lord Bridge of Harwich opined the same saying that the defendant is having best motive in discriminating still intention and motive will not save from the liability. LORD GRIFFITHS opined that when intention and motive is used in interchanging full significance is to be appreciated. LORD ACKNER opined that motive and intention are relevant in this case, but in law of crimes these intention and motive are to be distinguished and motive is not relevance compared to the intention. He clearly distinguished motive as a purpose why an act is done and it is irrelevant while deciding the criminal liability. LORD LOWRY opined that though 'intention or motive are relevant to the extant of remedies but it can not be necessary condition to liability'. As we see that the intentions are not formed out of its own they are the products of the human decisions and believes which form motive. Motive is closely related with intention. Motive is having lot of influence on intentions. But the law generally does not consider the motive in criminal law. Motive is influenced by psychological state of mind such as anger, jealousy, greed etc. Motive is also formed out of the needs and necessities for the existence life. Motive produces the Intention, Intention in turn leads to the action, that action leads either legal or illegal results. Therefore the motive is the prime cause of any action. Motive makes a person a social or law-abiding citizen or a criminal. In legal jurisprudence the doctrine of intention is crucial to fix liability and motive is irrelevant. Though Motive is irrelevant in deciding the criminal cases it is not eliminated completely from the purview of the courts. It is allowed after the case is decided keeping the motive away. It is allowed at the stage of deciding the degree of punishment. Good motive may mitigate the sentence. In a case of theft the trial is to be conducted without any consideration of motive behind the offence of theft and the criminal action of the theft is proved first with the evidence then the sentence as the will be pronounced by the judges. After adjudication of the crime the petition may be allowed for considering the motive for mitigating the sentence. Suppose the theft is conducted by a pauper to save himself from starvation this would be considered by the judges duly allowing to pray for the motive of the accused. This is so allowed on the mercy grounds and sentence may be reduced. But the accused cannot be acquitted simply on the ground of motive of starvation. This place motive place role in criminal law except this the motive would not play any role in criminal law. By allowing the motive at this stage the law maintained the balance of justice and equity. Motive is separated from intention with an object of controlling the crimes. If the motive is not separated the people under poverty take shelter of the motive for their criminal acts such as theft etc. They claim that the theft is done for survival or to overcome the starvation. Every such people will be tempted for robbery for lively hood rather than selecting other sources of living there by the crime will be multiplied and finally the peace of the society is lost. It is also the political strategy. The politicians not only see the law to be implemented and law and order is to be maintained they should also see for the social justice. In country where poverty exists it is duty of the politicians to protect them rather than eliminate them completely. If the punishments for such poverty people are not relaxed all most all people will be in jails for some crime or other. If any pauper does a theft and punishment is imposed on him for 100$ he will not be in position to pay and he will be left with no other choice except to live jail. This is only an example given to explain why motive is considered in some situation while determining the sentence but not at the time of adjudicating the crime. Consideration of motive is left to the discretion of the judges, as the law is not made any provisions for testing the motive. The judges while exercising this discretionary power are at delegate position and clear understanding of intention and motive is very vital aspect. There should not be any confusion or any misunderstanding or any ambiguity for effective judiciary and to achieve the balanced justice and equity. Bibliography www.nclg.org.uk/book1/2_6.htm www.oup.com/uk/booksites/ content/0199278024/criminal_ch02.pdf www.londonexternal.ac.uk/current_students/ programme_resources/laws/subject_guides/crim_law/crim_law_ch4.pdf www.unlockingthelaw.co.uk/ samples/criminal%20law%20chapter%201.pdf www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/qanda/books/05criminal/terms/ Read More