• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Categories of Culpability
Case:
 
 Regina v. Faulkner 
, 13 Cox C.C. 550 (1877 - Ireland) [p. 198-200] Facts: Sailor on board a ship went to steal some rum. While doing so, he lit a match, and the rum caught fire,which spread, and destroyed the ship. Δ had no intention of burning the ship, only of stealing rum. Still, he wasconvicted of both arson and theft, b/c Court reasoned that he is responsible for anything that might happen,foreseeable or not, when Δ was committing or attempting to commit a felony. Issue: Whether a Δ who intends to commit one crime, but by mistake and unintentionally commits another,should be held guilty of the second crime. -No. Reasoning: The Δ needs to have intended the act that he is charged, or that it was a necessary consequence of some other criminal act that he was engaged in, or that the result was a foreseeable result of committing theoriginal crime. The point here was that the Court did not address whether or not the fire was a foreseeableconsequence, and he acted recklessly, but said it didn’t matter, and these instructions were bad.RULE: You have to have a separate mental state for each element of the act. _____________________________________________ 
Class Notes
•
Reasons (mental state) in burning down the ship
o
Purposefully - they meant to burn down the ship
o
Knowingly - not the purpose, but he knew that it would happen and did it anyway
o
Recklessly - doesn’t know it would happen to a substantial certainty, but know there's a risk, anddoes it anyway
o
 Negligently - should have known about the risk. But didn’t and acted.
•
What is Faulkner's mental state with respect to the arson?
o
 Not purposeful _____________________________________________ 
Notes
: [p.200-206]
•
General and specific intent 
. (Bishop)
o
A "general" intent to commit some crime sufficed to make the offender criminally responsible for any harm caused. As long as the intended result was roughly as bad as the result produced, theunlawful intent would "transfer" to the actual, but unintended result.
o
"Specific" intent - where you need the intent for the specific harm caused. There are certaincrimes that require proof of "specific" intent, b/c they are only crimes b/c of the intent to doharm.
These crimes are:
•
All tentative crimes involving an unfulfilled purpose, such as attempts, larceny, burglary, or the wounding with intent to disfigure
•
All other crimes for which common law courts or statutes had defined an intentelement
o
Different versions of the distinction:
Specific intent may also refer to the mental state of any crime, while general intent to the broader question of Δ's blameworthiness or guilt. Here, a fact that negates "specificintent" negates the mental element of the offence. A fact that negates "general intent" isan excuse or affirmative defense.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...