An attempt to commit a crime consists of an act that comes close to its commission when that act is done with the purpose that the crime be committed. Unlawful assembly is the act of joining with a group in a public place with the intent to commit unlawful acts. Receiving stolen goods is a crime when one receives stolen goods knowing they are stolen. Manslaughter is typically defined as the killing of another by an act done with the awareness of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of doing so. (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 259)
A person is guilty if they are aware that the act, they are committing is a crime. A good example of this is in today's day and age, where many criminals use dating sites to pretend to be female to attract males. They promise them dates, sex, and anything else to gain their trust. Before anything else, they state a false excuse that they are in Russia or another country and need to transfer some money to another bank account, asking some of these men to assist them. In this scenario, it is not the typical "I'll give you millions if you help me transfer money from Africa; I am the prince or princess, please help." These criminals actually transfer stolen money into others' bank accounts. The people do not know it is stolen money. When they get arrested, the money is confiscated, but they cannot be convicted due to them not knowing it was stolen to begin with, and they had not intentionally assisted in the crime, at least not knowing it was a crime. Therefore, they cannot be charged as real criminals, even though they may have unintentionally assisted in money laundering. (Special Agent Davene Butler, 2016)"]
Let us have a look to another example, Obama hears a clicking in his luggage. He believes that it is the travel alarm clock that he packed. Little does he realize that someone has mysteriously substituted a ticking bomb for his alarm clock. When airport security inspects Obama’s luggage, they discover the bomb. They charge him with illegally possessing an explosive device. Is Obama guilty of the offense? (Kadish et al., 2016, p. xx)
Obama is not guilty because he did not know there was a bomb in his luggage, and it was placed there by someone else. If he had carried the bomb on purpose, then yes, he would be guilty, but in this case, he is not.
Note: This is a hypothetical situation and not an actual event involving the former president.
It depends on the crime. In the first example I gave, where someone was unknowingly involved in money laundering, if they had knowledge of the illegal activity and willingly participated, they could face a sentence ranging from 16 months to 20 years, depending on the amount involved (United States Sentencing Commission, 2019).
Regarding the Obama example, if a person was planning to use a bomb and carried it around with the intention of carrying out an attack, they could potentially face up to 25 years in prison, even if the attack was not executed (Cornell, n.d.).
Even if the deck chair is not a priceless heirloom, attempting to steal it is still a crime. The person knowingly engages in theft, fully aware that it is wrong, and may assume that, since the chair lacks significant value, it is acceptable to steal. However, stealing remains a crime regardless of the item's worth. In cases where the item is not of high value, people might avoid legal action or investigations. However, since the chair was deemed priceless, there is a possibility of going to court. Men's Rea (criminal intent) is already established in this situation.]
The rock was intended for the window, but by accident, it hit a person. If we go by the legal definitions, there was no malice or intent to kill a person. However, in reality, the person should be charged to some degree, perhaps not for manslaughter, but they were reckless, negligent, and acted irrationally, resulting in a death. Intent can differ for various elements of a crime; typically, a person is convicted of murder when they intend to kill, not when an accident occurs.]
Traditional common-law offenses often require proof that the defendant acted with various mental states such as "willfully," "intentionally," "maliciously," "corruptly," "wantonly," "recklessly," "negligently," or with "scienter" (roughly, knowledge). Additionally, when "intent" is at issue, courts often differentiate between "general intent" and "specific intent." These are just some of the most common mens rea terms encountered in statutes and judicial decisions (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 263).
When the commission of an offense defined in this chapter, or some element of an offense, requires a particular culpable mental state, such mental state is usually designated in the statute defining the offense by using terms such as 'intentionally,' 'knowingly,' 'recklessly,' or 'criminal negligence,' or by employing phrases like 'with intent to defraud' and 'knowing it to be false,' which describe a specific kind of intent or knowledge. If only one of these terms appears in a statute defining an offense, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense unless there is a clear intent to limit its application (Find Law, n.d.).
The person acted irrationally, recklessly, and negligently. They may not be murderers, but they should still be charged to some degree, as throwing a rock at a window could also lead to a charge of vandalism.
A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when they are aware of and consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely due to voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto (Find Law, n.d.).
A person acts with criminal negligence concerning a result or circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when they fail to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation (Find Law, n.d.).
Breaking a window may fall under local criminal mischief laws, which prohibit property damage crimes and can include everything from graffiti and street art to accidentally setting your school on fire after burning a love letter. Penalties for criminal mischief can vary widely depending on state and local statutes and the extent of the damage to the property caused (Find Law, 2017).
For example, criminal mischief in Alabama might be considered a Class B misdemeanor if the damage is less than $500, and it may only warrant a fine. However, criminal mischief causing more than $1,500 in damage or done by an explosion can be charged as a felony under New York law, which could lead to prison time (Find Law, 2017).]
Some states categorize specific property damage as vandalism, and breaking windows can often fall under this definition. For example, Tennessee defines vandalism as causing "damage to or the destruction of any real or personal property of another" and classifies vandalism of a retail merchant as a felony offense. Therefore, breaking a store window in Tennessee could result in a potential prison sentence of up to six years (Find Law, 2017).]
If a window was broken to gain access to a vehicle or building with the intent to steal property, you could be facing a whole host of other criminal charges and penalties. Many states have separate statutes to address acts like breaking into a locked vehicle to steal property or engaging in looting (Find Law, 2017).]
The least mysterious and most common usage of "specific intent" is to identify actions that must be done with a specified further purpose in mind. For instance, burglary requires a person to break and enter a structure with the additional objective of committing a felony inside. Without proof of that further objective, there can be no conviction for burglary. It is not enough for the person to knowingly or purposefully do the act itself—the breaking and entering. This latter state of mind is what is often meant by "general intent"—the intent to do an act without any further purpose in mind. Thus, burglary is commonly described as a "specific intent crime" because conviction for burglary necessitates proof of that specific purpose to commit a felony inside the building. Similarly, assault with intent to kill requires a person to commit a battery upon another with the specific further purpose of killing that person. Without proof of that further purpose, a case of assault with intent to kill must fail. Therefore, assault with intent to kill is also described as a "specific intent crime" (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 265).
In the case of breaking a window and accidentally hitting a person resulting in their death, specific intent of murder or any other specific purpose is absent. The person specifically aimed at the window, and the accident led to the unintended death of another. There is no specific intent present, but general intent may apply if they had originally aimed at the person, which is not the case in this scenario.
Is motive the same as intent? How is it different or similar?
The consequence need not be desired as an end in itself; it may be desired as a means to another end. There may be a series of ends, each a link in a chain of purpose. Every link in the chain, when it happens, is an intended consequence of the original act. For example, suppose a burglar is arrested while breaking into premises. It would obviously be no defense for him to say that his sole intention was to provide a nurse for his sick daughter, and for that purpose, take money from the premises, but that he had no desire or intention to deprive anyone of anything. Such an argument would be fatuous. He intended (1) to steal money (2) to help his daughter. These are two intentions, and one does not displace the other. English lawyers call the first an "intent," and the second a "motive"; this is because the first (the intent to steal) enters into the definition of burglary and is legally relevant, while the second (the motive of helping the daughter) is legally irrelevant, except perhaps in relation to sentencing. Although the verbal distinction between "intention" and "motive" is convenient, it must be realized that the remoter intention called motive is still an intention (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 277).]
A motive is still an intention as long as it applies to the case of committing an illegal act. As stated in the textbook, if a person is breaking into premises, they are either (1) trying to steal, which would be an intent as explained above, or (2) trying to help their daughter, which is a motive. It is not illegal to help another, so this motive would not assist in a criminal conviction. However, the burglar had a motive to steal, and this motive now becomes an intent for a crime.
A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when they knowingly enter or remain unlawfully in a building with the intent to commit a crime therein, and when:
Distinguishing recklessness from negligence: The MPC (Model Penal Code) differentiates between two kinds of culpable unintentional actions: reckless actions and negligent actions. Negligence is considered less culpable because the actor acts only inadvertently; they should have been aware of the danger, but they were not. The fault lies in inattentiveness when a reasonable person would have been attentive. On the other hand, recklessness is considered more culpable because the actor was subjectively aware of the danger but acted anyway. The fault is in choosing to run the risk (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 278).
As mentioned above, negligence is less prone to conviction because the person committing the act should have known better but did not. Recklessness is easier to charge because the person was aware of the dangers yet still committed the act. Although negligence and recklessness may seem similar, they are distinct. Negligence involves a lack of awareness of the danger, even though some individuals may attempt to deceive or lie about this, making it challenging to prove. On the other hand, recklessness relates to the person being aware of the dangers but still acting on them. These two are distinguished by the level of awareness; in one case, the person is not aware, and in the second, they are aware.
Determining the level of responsibility in such cases can be both subjective and objective because it is challenging to ascertain the person's actual awareness at the time of the incident. For example, consider a case from last year where a father was charged with negligence after his 2-year-old child accidentally shot themselves with the father's gun found in the SUV while the father was with the child, waiting for his girlfriend. The child found the loaded gun and shot themselves (Wbay, 2020).
Several questions arise: Why was the gun loaded? Why was it within the child's reach? Why was the safety not engaged? Why was the father not closely watching the child? Why did the father have a gun while watching over a child? In my opinion, this situation involves negligence and recklessness because the gun should not have been loaded and should not have been accessible to a 2-year-old. The father's actions indicate a failure to exercise proper care, allowing a dangerous situation to occur. If the father had been attentively watching the child, he could have prevented the child from reaching the gun. However, since the child had enough time to grab and shoot the gun, it suggests that the father may not have been paying adequate attention.
A person with special skills could be anything; for example, a professional pen-tester is a hacker but a white hat, nonetheless still a hacker. If a hacker breaks the law, knowing how to evade it not just from reading but from training with real professionals, they have the skills to do so, which someone in the general populace may not possess. This person knowingly breaks the law, understanding it's a crime, and still chooses to do so, which is dangerous. It's like saying a doctor knows anatomy to help save lives, but if they reverse that and start murdering, acting like gods, they are no longer doctors; they are killers. They were trained to do good, yet they chose to do bad.
Deliberate ignorance is the act of knowing something but choosing to remain unaware to protect oneself.
The substantive justification for the rule is that deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable. The textual justification is that in common understanding, one "knows" facts of which they are less than absolutely certain. To act "knowingly," therefore, is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge but also to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question. When such awareness is present, "positive" knowledge is not required (Kadish et al., 2016, p. 281).
Unfortunately, there are not many ways to definitively prove deliberate ignorance since we cannot read minds. Unless the person has a record or an accomplice or a friend comes forward admitting something, it is very hard to establish deliberate ignorance. However, if it is discovered that a person is deliberately ignorant, it should be considered grounds for culpability.
The best articles, links, and news delivered once a week to your inbox.