Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In criminal law, an important distinction is between general and specific intent. General intent is the weaker term. It implies that the person meant to act the way they did. It does not imply that they wanted to cause harm or that they were trying to achieve a particular result, unlike specific intent.
Direct intent: a person has direct intent when they intend a particular consequence of their act. Oblique intent: the person has oblique intent when the event is a natural consequence of a voluntary act and they foresee it as such. The 'natural consequence' definition was replaced [where?] in R v Woollin [6] with the
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the criminal procedure topic of entrapment.A narrowly divided court overturned the conviction of a Nebraska man for receiving child sexual abuse material through the mail, ruling that postal inspectors had implanted a desire to do so through repeated written entreaties.
Genocidal intent is the specific mental element, or mens rea, required to classify an act as genocide under international law, [1] particularly the 1948 Genocide Convention. [2] To establish genocide, perpetrators must be shown to have had the dolus specialis , or specific intent , to destroy a particular national, ethnic, racial, or religious ...
[Genocide is] the planned destruction, since the mid-nineteenth century, of a racial, national, or ethnic group as such, by the following means: (a) selective mass murder of elites or parts of the population; (b) elimination of national (racial, ethnic) culture and religious life with the intent of "denationalization"; (c) enslavement, with the ...
The general rule under common law and statutory law is that ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution. However, in some cases, courts have held that if knowledge of a law, or if intent to break a law, is a material element of an offense, then a defendant may use good faith ignorance as a defense. [61]
Judges normally do not define intention for juries, and the weight of authority is to give it its current meaning in everyday language as directed by the House of Lords in R v Moloney, [1] where can be found references to a number of definitions of intention using subjective and objective tests, and knowledge of consequences of actions or omissions.
Case history; Prior: Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Holding; Mere omission of any mention of intent from the criminal statute was not to be construed as the elimination of that element from the crimes denounced, and that where intent was an element of the crime charged, its existence was a question of fact to be determined by the jury.