Concept of Criminal Intent - Essay Example

Criminal Intent and the Elements of a Crime The rise of court scene dramas, such as Law and Order: Criminal Intent, has made the public more aware of the nature and elements of crime, especially those that are involved in the litigation of the crime. A conviction or an acquittal depends greatly on the lawyer’s ability to present a solid case, where, more often than not, the establishment of criminal intent is crucial. However, amidst all the drama presented on television, the real definition of criminal intent may have been lost in translation and people normally equate intent with motive.

Although it cannot be denied that these two concepts are inevitably intertwined, the difference between the two lies in the fact that while a person may have sufficient motive to commit a crime, he or she may not be the one who actually intended to commit that particular crime (Koppenhaver, 2008). Hence, although motive, it being whatever reason whether personal or business-related that may induce a person to become involved in criminal activity, is a requirement for the commission of a crime, intent is the concrete intention of a person to commit a crime, like murder or robbery (Koppenhaver, 2008).

What then is criminal intent? In order to answer this completely, it is important to first outline the various elements of a crime as it is a significant aspect of it. There are two main elements of a crime, the factual (actus reus) and mental (mens rea) that includes causation and proof of intention, respectively (Azuelos-Atias, 2007, p. 16). Actus Reus. Actus Reus or the factual element of a crime is the act of the commission of the crime itself and the events surrounding it, which includes the person’s behavior, the circumstances of the commission of the crime, and causation (Azuelos-Atias, 2007, p. 16). “The circumstances may exist prior to the committing of the act, simultaneously with it, and sometimes it may even come into existence after it” (Bein, 1995 cited in Azuelos-Atias, 2007, p. 16). Causation involves the establishment that the result, for instance brain damage due to grievious bodily harm, is connected to the act of the crime (Azuelos-Atias, 2007, p. 16). It is not enough to establish cause-in-fact of the damage as legal cause is something that needs to take into consideration the time period between the criminal act and the result, as well as foreign intervening acts (Azuelos-Atias, 2007, p. 17). For example, if the victim died one year and one day after the crime happened, which allegedly caused the death of the said victim, the perpetrator is not anymore held responsible—although of course, the duration may vary depending on states and countries (Azuelos-Atias, 2007, p. 17). Mens Rea.

The mental element of a crime is where criminal intent comes in as this generally defines subjective guilt, which denotes a person’s “actual awareness not only of the meaning of his acts and the existence of surrounding circumstances but also of the results as at least a concrete possibility” (bein, 1995, p. 156 cited in Azuelos-Atias, 2007, p. 18). This means that a person knows what he is doing and is aware of the probable, if not definite, consequences of his actions. If the person is not just aware of the possible results of his criminal actions, but he or she actually wants for that particular result to happen, then actual intention is involved, as opposed to mere recklessness (Azuelos-Atias, 2007, p. 18). Furthermore, criminal intent “must be formed before the act, and it must unite with the act.

” Although intent may be an abstract and psychological idea that is difficult to prove, circumstantial and direct evidence may be used to legally establish it (Azuelos-Atias, 2007, p. 19). Confessions, although difficult to attain, is something that will instantly prove intent. However, there are also other ways of proving criminal intent. For instance an employee’s fingerprints laced in the poison that was found on the coffee mug of the boss that was murdered is used as evidence that establishes intent.

Furthemore, the employee being known to hold a grudge against his superior for having been passed for promotion may be used as additional motive that can further solidify intent. It can be seen here that a crime cannot be considered as one if either the factual or mental elemant is missing. Hence, the phrase “no body, no crime,” meaning if there is no factual evidence of a crime, no one may be charged with it. Likewise, a crime is difficult to prove if the mental element is missing, wherein a person’s level of awareness is hard to assess, much more that person’s obvious desire and intention to commit the criminal act.

This usually happens when the perpetrator is supposedly mentally incapacitated or the insanity plea. Although criminal intent may be tricky to establish, it must be remembered that it should be consistent with the factual element. One cannot just surmise and randomly implicate a person in a crime as it is a serious matter, with very grave consequences. ReferencesAzuelos-Atias, S. (2007). A Pragmatic Analysis of Legal Proofs of Criminal Intent. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Koppenhaver, J. J. (2008).

Motive and Intent. Retrieved May 8, 2009 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/40746/Motive-IntentNet Industries. (2009). Criminal Law – Intent. Retrieved May 8, 2009 from http://law.jrank.org/pages/5863/Criminal-Law-Intent.html