In administrative law, the courts also have the power to determine the intent of Parliament for the purposes of legal interpretation. In doing so, the courts are primarily guided by the language of the law as understood in the codification. It should be noted that the courts sometimes also take the omission of certain wording as an indication of legislative intent. The courts also consider the circumstances in which the law was passed, the purpose and the legislative history. The political problem for those who administer the criminal justice system is that when planning their actions, people may be aware of many likely and possible consequences. Thus, the decision to proceed with the current plan means that all the intended consequences are foreseen to some extent, that is, within and not against the framework of each person`s intention. In the normal course of events, a certain action will result in some consequence, unless something unexpected is prevented. [and] the likelihood that the consequences taken were anticipated must be overwhelming before it is sufficient to establish the required intent. Unconditional intent: the result expected of a person as a result of their actions. Although the concept of mens rea is generally accepted, problems arise when applying it to some cases.
Some crimes require a very high degree of intent, while others require much less. Theft, for example, forces the defendant to intentionally take property to which he knows he is not entitled, with the intention of permanently depriving the rightful owner of possession. On the other hand, negligent homicide only requires the defendant to negligently cause the death of another. For example, A, a jealous woman, discovers that her husband is having a sexual affair with B. B dies in the resulting fire. A is shocked and horrified. It did not occur to him that B might be in physical danger, and there was no conscious plan in his head to injure B when the fire broke out. But if A`s behavior is analyzed, B`s death must be premeditated.
If A really wanted to avoid any possibility of injury to B, she wouldn`t have started the fire. Or, if B`s verbal warning to leave was not an option, she should have waited until B left the house before starting the fire. In fact, she waited until nightfall, when it was more likely that B would be home and fewer people would be there to sound the alarm. The intention would be less if A had set fire to the house during the day after ringing the doorbell to check that no one was home, and then immediately called the fire department to report the fire. This distinction is important because they have different standards of proof. For reasons of general intent, the prosecution need only prove that the accused intended to commit the act in question, whereas proof of concrete intent would require the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to bring about some consequence by his actions or that he committed the act for an erroneous purpose. It should be noted that because of the confusion surrounding general and specific intentions, some jurisdictions have adopted the Model Penal Code approach of proving intent by showing an accused`s degree of certainty that his or her conduct would lead to a certain outcome. Basic intentional offences include assault and assault, conversion of property, false arrest, false detention, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and trespassing. It is not normally necessary for unlawful or unlawful means to be used to achieve the negative result, provided that the unlawful conduct was intentional and did not involve an excuse or justification. Intent is also sometimes at the heart of contracts when a court finds the existence of a contract or interprets the terms of the contract.
In these situations, the courts determine the objective intention of the parties by examining the language used in the contract when it was concluded; The subjective or secret intent of the parties is ignored. If the wording of the contract is ambiguous, Parol Evidence Rule allows courts to consider external evidence when determining the intention of the parties. In medical cases, the doctrine of double action can be used as a defence. As Justice Devlin noted in the 1957 trial of Dr. John Bodkin Adams, causing death by administering lethal drugs to a patient if the intent is solely to relieve pain is not considered murder, even if death is a potential or even probable outcome. [9] Criminal law and tort law share the concept of delegated intent. For example, if A shoots B with a firearm and intends to hit B, but the bullet hits C, the intent to strike is transferred to the act of shooting C, providing the intent necessary for a criminal conviction or tortious civil action. Under the punitive doctrine of transferred intent, intent is presumed to follow the criminal act, regardless of who turns out to be the victim. Under the doctrine of tort of intent transferred, the defendant is liable for pecuniary damages caused to the unintentional victim. In 1985, the report of the Legal Affairs Committee on the Codification of Criminal Law proposed the following definition of murder: for example, a couple plans an outdoor wedding, but also reserves an indoor facility in an unlikely state of bad weather.