Criminal intent
Criminal intent, a crucial aspect of criminal law, refers to the mental state or purpose behind an individual's actions when committing a crime. It is closely linked to the concept of actus reus, or the physical act, and together they establish a defendant's criminal responsibility. The state of mind, known as mens rea, plays a pivotal role in determining culpability, as emphasized by Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson in the landmark case Morissette v. United States, which framed crime as involving both an "evil-meaning mind" and an "evil-doing hand."
The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code outlines four levels of criminal intent: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent, each indicating varying degrees of awareness and intent to cause harm. For instance, a purposeful act involves a deliberate intention to achieve a specific outcome, while a reckless act demonstrates a disregard for significant risks. Negligence, on the other hand, occurs when an individual fails to meet a standard of care, leading to unintended harm. Understanding these distinctions is essential, as the same action can carry different legal consequences based solely on the actor's intent. This nuanced understanding of criminal intent is fundamental for individuals seeking to comprehend the complexities of criminal responsibility.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Criminal intent
SIGNIFICANCE: Criminal intent is one of the conditions that must be met in order to find a defendant criminally responsible.
In order to establish criminal responsibility, the easiest condition to recognize is the act, known as the actus reus . This is the outward behavior that makes up the crime. An equally important component is a person’s state of mind when committing the act, known as mens rea . Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Morissette v. United States (1952) defined crime as “a compound concept . . . constituted only from concurrence of an evil-meaning mind and an evil-doing hand.” In common law the evil mind has also been referred to as a guilty mind, felonious intent, guilty knowledge, evil purpose, or mental culpability. All these terms signify that persons charged with crimes meant to cause the natural and probable results of their actions.
In 1962 the American Law Institute published the Model Penal Code , which suggested that confusion in this and other areas of law could be avoided if specific, uniform definitions were incorporated into statutes. It determined that four culpable mental states compose criminal intent. In order of severity, crimes may be committed purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. In most statutes the mental states required to categorize crimes are specifically stated.
Persons act purposely when they desire a result. For example, persons act purposely if they plan to kill other persons by lying in wait and ambushing them using techniques that ensure success. Acts are carried out knowingly when persons act in such a way that they are clearly aware that a certain result is likely. When persons point guns at others and pull the trigger, they are fully cognizant that this will most likely cause death. Persons act recklessly when they disregard an obvious and considerable risk. Driving under the influence of alcohol is an example of a crime based on the criterion of recklessness as a mental state. Negligence is present when persons deviate significantly from a standard of care that would constitute normal behavior in the situation. If a gun owner in a home with children leaves a weapon on a nightstand and a child shoots a playmate with it, the owner is negligent in creating the situation and is criminally liable.
One type of act may be judged differently depending solely on the criminal intent involved. If persons driving cars hit pedestrians, they do so purposely if they aim their cars at the pedestrians. They do so knowingly if they see the pedestrians crossing the street and refuse to slow down, expecting the pedestrians to move out of the way. They do so recklessly if they have been drinking heavily and are unable to react to the pedestrians in a crosswalk. They do so negligently if they drive significantly over the speed limit and are unable to stop quickly enough. However, they have committed no crime whatsoever if the pedestrians have darted from between two parked cars into the middle of the street.
Bibliography
Azuelos-Atias, Sol. A Pragmatic Analysis of Legal Proofs of Criminal Intent. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, 2007. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 25 May 2016.
"Criminal Intent." Cornell Law School, July 2022, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal‗intent. Accessed 25 June 2024.
Katz, Leo. Bad Acts and Guilty Minds: Conundrums of the Criminal Law. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987.
May, Larry. Aggression and Crimes against Peace. New York: Cambridge UP, 2008. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 25 May 2016.
Sterling Silver, Jay. “Intent Reconceived.” Iowa Law Review, vol. 101, no. 1. (2015): 371–403, ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-101-issue-1/intent-reconceived. Accessed 25 June 2024.
Tadros, Victor. Criminal Responsibility. Oxford; New York: Oxford UP, 2005.