The Legal Implication of Intention
Student’s Name
Course
Date
There is a clear distinction between consequences, intent, and motive towards the justification of an individual’s actions. The law establishes that the measure of intent regards the likelihood of a foreseen consequence. The definition of intent lies in the ability to foster a decision within the scope of an individual’s capability despite the lack of or the desire for the consequences of the action. During the determination of a case about intent, the defendant should indicate the decision of the deceased to render the profound illegal act. In the case of intent, the measuring parameter is the individual’s intent to commit the offense despite the emergence of another consequence.
The marginal difference between motive and intent lies in the individual’s emotional connection to an act. An excellent example is an individual deciding to steal money from the bank to help the poor. The accused lacks the motive but shows an intent that is contrary to the legal system. In this case, the accused gets jailed for the intent to steal money from the bank to help the poor thus missing the qualification of a theft case. The key element in the definition and justification of intent is the emotional connection to the decision, contrary to the definition of motive. Intent enshrines two different approaches, that is, oblique and direct.
Direct intent engulfs the absolute link between the result from the decision that shows the individual’s intention. An excellent example of direct intent involves an individual who decides to shoot the friend and succeeds. In this case, there is direct intent mainly because the accused anticipated the action from the decision and achieved the desired outcome. On the other hand, oblique intent is the decision to commit a particular act but results in a different outcome. In such a scenario, the individual attains oblique intent that significantly fosters verdict. The main goal of intent, under direct and oblique, is the establishment of an emotional resolve to commit the illegal act without consideration of murder as a result. It is difficult to prove intention in a court of law mainly because of the underlying contradiction of the foreseen consequences. On the one hand, the intent is an approach that impacts an accused person’s verdict in the court of law as innocent since the outcome was not a decision before acting. On the other hand, it is tough to prove the dissociation between intent and foresight of the consequences. Ideally, apart from the distinctive element of the different types of intention, it is essential to foster a profound perspective between foresight consequences and unexpected outcomes.
During decision-making, an individual foresees the consequences as well as the expected outcomes. An excellent example of a circumstance is the case that an individual intends to stop a colleague from going to work. As a result, the individual resolves to drop a barrier that is intended to land in front of the car. However, the barrier falls on top of the car causing the death of the driver. Although the accused had an intention of stopping the car and preventing the colleague from going to work, the outcome is a foresight of the consequences. Primarily, the accused had the thought of the worst outcome from the situation. In this case, the individual is found guilty and sentenced to a jail term. The intent is a multidimensional phenomenon that profoundly impacts the legal framework from various perspectives. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 establishes that the jury and court should not be bound by the essence of intent towards delivering a ruling. Further, the intent and the foresight of consequences lie in the provided evidence for inferences. The law intensifies the sophisticated approach under the mainframe of intentional acts and the ruling from the jury and the judge.
Different previous cases show the distinctive level of intent and its contribution to the verdict by the court of law. One of the cases that prominently utilized the essence of intent during the verdict was the Moloney that took place in 1985. The case involves the murder of a stepfather. A son and a stepfather engaged in an argument in a room during a family party and moments later the attendants heard a gunshot. The son called the police and reported that he had killed his stepfather. The son explained to the court that he was competing with his stepfather for the fastest to load a shotgun. However, the stepfather provoked him about showing his wits suddenly shot without aiming but the outcome was different. The criminal court sentenced the son to a jail term after determining that he was guilty. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal quashed the verdict and established that the accused was innocent. According to the Appeal judge, the foresight consequence featured as evidence of intent. Therefore, the son missed the intent to kill his stepfather.
In a different spectrum, the verdict in another case increased the controversy that lie in the determination of intent and sentencing of the accused. In 1986, during the Nedrick, the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling by the criminal court regarding the sentencing of the accused. The accused had a grudge against a particular female and decided to light her mailbox on fire. A child died from the action the Court of Appeal disregarded the sentencing rendered manslaughter charges. Primarily, the judge argued that it is essential for the jury to answer two major questions. The first question is the consideration of higher probability in the occurrence of the event. The second question engulfed the accused ability to foresee the consequence of killing another human being. During the Woolin case in 1998, the judges used a different approach once the evidence became considerate. In this case, the accused had thrown his baby into a pram. The baby got injured then died and the man got sentenced for the murder of a child. The main reason involved the coherent evidence showing intent and the determination of the foreseen consequences. As a result, the man got sentenced to a jail term.
Consequently, the law on intent is complex but provides a spectral approach that appreciates an individual’s emotional connection to a particular decision and act. Although the determination of intent fosters profound controversy across society, it is an approach that empowers the court system with a dynamic aspect to handle cases. There is a major difference between motive and intent. Intent focuses on the decision of an individual and the outcome that is either foreseen or an occurrence. On the one hand, intent fosters the promotion of justice. On the other hand, it is an initiative that contradicts the moral fabric of a society based on the major criminal activities and outcomes such as murder.
List of References
Martin, J., & Price, N. (2017). Law [Ebook]. Retrieved from https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/Law/AQALaw_SampleChapter.pdf
Reslow, N. (2019). Horizontal and Vertical Diversity: Unintended Consequences of EU External Migration Policy. In Unintended Consequences of EU External Action. Taylor & Francis.
