"Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with Mens_rea, which means the mental state shows liability which is enforced by law as an element of a crime. [1]
There are two objections to motive when considering punishment. The first is volitional objection, which is the argument that the person cannot manage his or her own motives and therefore cannot be punished for them. The second objection is neutrality objection. This is based on the idea that our society has contrasting political opinions and therefore a government’s preference should be limited.[2]
There are four different ways a defendants motive can be pertinent to his or her criminal liability. Motive can be fully inculpatory or exculpatory or only partially inculpatory or exculpatory. When one has acted with a specific motive, lawful behavior becomes illegal, and this is when motive is fully inculpatory. If illegal activity with a particular motive does not hold a defendant responsible than that motive is fully exculpatory. When a motive supplies inadequate defense to a crime, the motive is partially exculpatory. When a motive says the kind of infraction for which the defendant is responsible, the motive is partially inculpatory. [3]
References
edit- ^ Frug, Sara S. "Mens Rea". LII / Legal Information Institute. https://plus.google.com/104684928608521114951. Retrieved 2015-10-15.
{{cite web}}: External link in|publisher= - ^ Hessick, Carissa (2006). "Motives Role in Criminal Punishment". Southern California Law Review: 90-91. Retrieved October 8, 2015.
- ^ Hessick, Carissa (2006). "Motive's Role in Criminal Punishment". Southern California Law Review: 96-100. Retrieved October 8, 2015.
 | This is a user sandbox of Lreich1. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. |