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

Intention and Motive in Criminal Law - Essay Example The prosecutor can argue that his wife had the motive even though he may not have evidence to prove the case. Intent may be defined as acts that go before the actual crime and these acts then merge with the crime. Mohan (1975) defines intent as 'decision to bring about despite the fact that the accused wanted the consequence of his actions or not'. 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 person 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 committed, then it can be presumed that the person had the intention of committing the act. Take an example of someone who was seen carrying 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 any other issue to fall back on except motive and may consequently pronounce 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 aware of the effect of his actions and therefore did not have motive. However, intent is an element that must be proved in most crimes before judgement is passed. This means that the prosecutor 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 false 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 tablet 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 team 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, assault, 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