The general intention is less sophisticated than the specific intention. Thus, crimes with general intent are easier to prove and can also lead to a less severe sentence. A basic definition of general intent is the intent to commit the indictable act or actus reus. If the accused acts intentionally, but without the added desire to achieve a particular result, or does something other than the crime itself, the accused acted with general intent. Menschen v. McDaniel, 597 P.2d 124 (1979), accessed February 14, 2011, scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8266915507346002022&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr. Actus reus (guilty act in Latin) occurs when an illegal act or an unlawful omission of an act takes place as required by law. Words can also be considered acts in criminal law: purges, verbal threats, conspiracy or solicitation. Thoughts, on the other hand, are not considered criminal; Rather, they contribute to the second element: intent. 3 THE LEGAL NATURE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCTThe Western jurisprudential language can be said that all crimes share certain characteristics or elements, and the concept of crime itself can be described as being based on such general principles. Together, these characteristics form the legal essence of the concept of crime. In legal language, they are called building blocks and describe the most essential aspects of criminal behaviour. It can be said that all crimes have these general elements in one form or another.
They can be defined by law in different ways depending on the jurisdiction. A person commits a crime when he acts in a way that fulfills all the elements of a crime. The law defining the offence also sets out the constituent elements of the offence. In general, each offence has three elements: first, the act or conduct (“actus reus”); second, the mental state of the individual at the time of action (“mens rea”); and third, causality between action and effect (usually either “immediate causality” or “but for causality”). In the case of law enforcement, the government has the burden of proof to establish all the elements of a crime beyond a doubt. The basic elements of a crime are listed below; [1] In general, each element of a crime falls into one of these categories. At common law, conduct can only be considered criminal if a defendant possesses a certain degree of intent – intent, knowledge or recklessness – both in terms of the nature of his alleged conduct and the existence of factual circumstances in which the law considers such conduct to be criminal. However, for some crimes enacted by law, the most notable example being lawful rape, it is not necessary for an accused to have had a certain degree of faith or wilful disregard for the existence of certain factual circumstances (such as the age of the accuser) that made his conduct punishable; These offences are called strict liability offences. [2] The Model Criminal Code adapts the legal requirement of causation to predictability, depending on whether the accused acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or negligently.
If the defendant`s conduct is reckless or negligent, the legal requirement of causation is analyzed on the basis of the risk of harm and not the defendant`s objective. Although passive rather than active, possession is still considered a criminal act. The most common items possessed by criminals are illegal contraband, drugs and weapons. There are two types of possession: actual possession and implied possession. Actual possession means that the defendant has the object on or near him. Implied possession indicates that the object is not on the defendant`s person, but is in the defendant`s area of control, such as in a house or car with the defendant (State v. Davis, 2011). More than one defendant may be in possession of an object, although it is clearly implied possession for at least one of them. Intent is notoriously difficult to prove because it is trapped in the defendant`s mind. Normally, the only direct evidence of intent is the confession of an accused, which the government cannot obtain by force because of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Comments are closed.