Modern American Law: Crime & Intent Considerations - Essay Sample

Introduction

In modern American Law, various facets form the basis for declaring an action as either a crime or not. Such considerations by the court include the state of mind of the person involved, the required acts as well as the problem of abandonment (Duff, 2013). Usually, the requirement for intent may always seem unusual, primarily when the crime emanates from negligence, recklessness as well as based on strict liability. Generally, No "crime" has been committed (in law and logic) until a court finds - i.e., creates for all intents and purposes - guilty intent'.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In criminal law, intent revolves around determination or the resolve by a person to commit a crime (Thaw, 2013). Therefore intent could be classified as specific, general as well as constructive intent. General intent relates to the presumed act of commission by the respondent, such as overspending in a highway (Pifferi, 2017).

On the other hand, specific intent involves predisposition or preplanning of a criminal offense/action such as burglary and robbery with violence (Silver, 2015). Again, constructive intent may relate to action with an unintentional outcome, such as the death of a pedestrian that is orchestrated by a negligent driver (Bantekas and Nash, 2009).

As such, when a person is charged with a criminal act, it must be proven that the person both committed the act as well as demonstrate the intent for such a criminal act (Thaw, 2013). An individual can always act with or without the intention to commit a crime; thus, the court must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not the action was ill-intended. For example, in the case where a person intentionally set out with a weapon with the sole aim of physically hurting the neighbor, it could be deduced that he/she deliberately carried out an offense on the subject. As such, the act can be profiled as being criminal (Silver, 2015).

On the other hand, a person may also act recklessly with no intention of committing some grievous crimes. For example, the person may set fire on a pile of newspapers oblivious to the fact that the fire may spread to the neighbor's orchard (Silver, 2015). As such, the intention of the person is not ideal to commit the crime, but due to recklessness, he/she offends the neighbor (Duff, 2013).

Through the statement by Ditton that; No "crime" has been committed (in law and logic) until a court finds - i.e., creates for all intents and purposes - guilty intent', it could be concluded that it is possible to have a dark figure of unrecorded crime. This could be supported by the fact that not all the criminals are always prosecuted; some of the criminal law offenders are always cautioned based on the intent of the actions for which they are prosecuted (Thaw, 2013).

Moreover, criminal law is often seen as a response to crime rather than informing on the reasons why specific actions are criminalized over others. Although most scholars define crime as immoral acts, it is hard to adopt such perception since immorality and crime do not mean the same thing (Thaw, 2013).

An action may tend to be immoral but committed with good intention, thus ceasing to be a crime. As such, there has always been a divergence of views regarding what should be considered criminal offense among various individuals within the society (Bantekas and Nash, 2009). For instance, a person may not intend the results of his/her actions, but out of recklessness, the person may still be convicted (Duff, 2013).

Again, the intention of a criminal action could either be the direct or oblique intention, where direct intention involves the defendant committing a crime with an entirely foreseeable consequence. The oblique intention is when the criminal virtually suspects that such actions could have inevitable consequences, but he/she continues to commit such an offense nevertheless (Bantekas and Nash, 2009).

It is worth noting that rarely do people refer to the physical activity component of crime as being wrong. For instance, the killing could often be right circumstances such as self-defense, during state execution, or even during a legally declared state of war. Again, a drug like cannabis was remained prescribed for medicinal purposes until 1971 (Duff, 2013).

In the recent past, the use of cannabis as a drug has been embraced in countries such as Britain as part of the integrated treatment program for cancer and related ailments. Thus, the use of cannabis, in this case, does not become a crime due to intent-to-treat cancer and associated infections. Moreover, in America, cannabis has also been adopted to boost the appetite for patients who have AIDS. As such, the statement by Ditton does explain why some actions that are perceived as criminal could be acceptable within some jurisdictions.

Most scholars have always tried to understand whether there exist certain crimes that could be considered punishable acts at all times and in all places. However, significant findings have been that there are no such acts within society (Silver, 2015). Due to the amorphous nature of several criminal acts, it is practical to believe that there is no crime committed by any criminal unless the court finds otherwise.

Furthermore, the argument by Ditton could be valid since there are often differences in criminal law that could be observed within the same country, for example, between various states in a federation such as the United States (Cryer, Robinson, and Vasiliev, 2019). An example is the liberalization of abortion in Wales, England, and Scotland, which has since not extended to Northern Ireland following the passing of the Abortion Act of 1967 (Thaw, 2013).

Again, when Homosexual is committed privately between two consenting individuals aged above 21 years, it ceases to be a criminal act in England as provided for in the 1967 Sexual Offence Act. Most significantly, the statement by Ditton does not alienate the criminal process from the social context (Silver, 2015). For instance, various critics have questioned why some acts are often criminalized, while others are simply disapproved, such as the smoking of tobacco and cannabis. Again the question of why criminal law is regularly enforced on some groups within ten society and why certain criminal offenses are considered more important over others within the society (Bantekas and Nash, 2009).

As such, it is clear that no action could be considered a crime unless proven otherwise in a court of law based on the intent and purpose of such activities. Several authors have often argued that there needs to be a better way of distinguishing between 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' acts within the society (Thaw, 2013). In the traditional setup, crime has often been viewed to be an act of deviance to the societal norms.

On the contrary, the statement by Ditton may not be valid concerning the traditional perception of what crime entails. For instance, the conventional explanation of crime puts forward the notion that crime emanates from the societal consensus of values. As such, any action that is viewed to have deviated from the societal consensus is considered an offense (Duff, 2013).

However, these arguments remain contestable since each community has got a set of consensual values that are unique and separable from the entire society. As such, whatever is viewed as a crime in one society may be praiseworthy and acceptable in another (Thaw, 2013). Thus, crime is a consequence of a simultaneous process involving the offender, the legislature, the lawyer, the police, and the court, who in collaboration to establish a crime ultimately.

In such an argument, it is practical to believe that it is not only the behavior itself that constitutes a crime but rather the cumulative criminal attribution or labeling done by others on the criminal suspect. Some scholars believe that without specific reactions from some elements within the society, crime cannot effectively exist (Bantekas and Nash, 2009). This is unlike the traditional viewpoint of crime that the definition of crime is based on some predetermined existence of criminal law within the society through the consensual societal values.

The concept of crime has often been replaced by social harm. Crimes usually amount only to a little percentage of the eminent damages that are often experienced within the society (Bassiouni, 2013). For instance, research by several scholars reveals that societal preventable deaths are usually much higher compared to the deaths that are associated with homicide and other perceived crimes within society. As such, an action should be viewed as a crime only when it has been proven so by the court of law or any higher authority with such a mandate (Silver, 2015).

Conclusion

In conclusion, No "crime" has been committed (in law and logic) until a court finds - i.e., creates for all intents and purposes - guilty intent'. The intent and purposes of an act much determine the grievousness and the convict's ability of a criminal offense. For example, in the case where a person intentionally set out with a weapon with the sole aim of physically hurting the neighbor, it could be deduced that he/she deliberately carried out an offense on the subject. As such the act can be profiled as being criminal

References

Ashworth, A., and Horder, J., 2013. Principles of criminal law. Oxford University Press.

Bantekas, I., and Nash, S., 2009. International criminal law. Routledge.

Bassiouni, M.C., 2013. Introduction to international criminal law. Brill Nijhoff.

Cassese, A., 2013. Cassese's international criminal law. Oxford University Press.

Cryer, R., Robinson, D., and Vasiliev, S., 2019. An introduction to international criminal law and procedure. Cambridge University Press.

Duff, R.A., 2013. Criminal attempts. International Encyclopedia of Ethics.

Pifferi, M., 2017. Criminal Responsibility and Its Histories: New Perspectives for Comparative Legal History. Critical Analysis of Law, 4(2).

Silver, J.S., 2015. Intent Reconceived. Iowa L. Rev., 101, p.371.

Thaw, D., 2013. Criminalizing Hacking, Not Dating: Reconstructing the CFAA Intent Requirement. J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 103, p.907.

Weber, M.C., 2015. Accidentally on purpose: Intent in disability discrimination law. BCL, Rev., 56, p.1417.