Intention and Motive in Criminal Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Intention and theme in Criminal legal philosophy - Essay ExampleThe prosecutor mint argue that his wife had the motive even though he may non have evidence to prove the typesetters effect.Intent may be defined as molds that go before the actual crime and these acts then merge with the crime. Mohan (1975) defines heading as decision to bring intimately despite the fact that the accused wanted the consequence of his actions or non. Intent can occur at the same time as the act or it can occur suddenly before the crime. A good example of intent is possession of a pistol by an accused in the case that he/she is facing violence with robbery charges. Possession of this weapon shows that this soulfulness had the intent of committing robbery with violence.Motive cannot be seen in the commission of the crime while intent can. When a criminal act has been pull, then it can be presumed that the person had the intention of committing the act. Take an example of someone who was seen c arrying a firearm and pointing it to another, it can be said that this person had the intention of committing the crime because the most natural result of this action would be a crime. However, defendants can deny this by claiming that the accused thought that the weapon was a toy and did not intend on committing a crime. (Smith, 1998)Motive alone is not sufficient to convict while intent may be sufficient to cause conviction. Motive comes in handy when a given case does not have concrete evidence. This means that a judge may not have all other issue to fall back on except motive and may consequently enounce an accused guilty or innocent depending on the which side can prove presence of motive. R v. Cunningham 1957 ER 863 it was held that the defendant was not guilty because the defendant was not awargon of the effect of his actions and thitherfore did not have motive.However, intent is an element that must be proved in most crimes before taste is passed. This means that the pros ecutor must show that the person accused had the knowledge that he/she was committing a crime. These kinds of crimes are called general intent crimes. Some examples of such crimes include trumped-up(prenominal) imprisonment, rape, battery and kidnapping. In R v. Windle 1952 2 QB 826 A person was accused of murder after he gave his wife a hundred lozenge of aspirin. However, the accused suffered from a mental disease and was not aware of the consequence of his actions. But this same person later told police that he knew they were going to hang him or it. The accused was found guilty because he understood what he was doing and therefore had intent.There are also other cases that require the defence squad to prove that intent was specific. This means that there must be evidence independent from the commission of the act that shows that the person had the intention of committing crime. Some examples of crimes that require defence to prove specific intent are embezzlement, burglary, a ssault, forgery, conspiracy, false pretence, solicitation and first degree murder that were pre meditated. DPP vs. Majewski 1977 AC 433 Majewski was accused of causing bodily harm to members of a pub. This same person was drank and defence could not prove specific intent. It was held that he was not guilty. To every rule, there must be an exception. There are some crimes that fall under strict liability laws. These crimes do not require intent for conviction. These laws stipulate that the act is criminal whether or not the person who committed the crime had the intention