Foresight of Consequence as Being Virtually Certain is not the Same as Intention
In most cases it is necessary to show that the defendant committed the
offence with the relevant mens rea. Mens rea means 'guilty mind ' and
refers to the intention element of a crime. It is the state of mind
expressly or implicitly required by the definition of the offence
charged. It can also be described as the required blameworthy state of
mind of the defendant at the time that the actus reus was caused.
However, the level of blameworthiness required varies from crime to
crime and the mens rea for each crime will be different.
Intention is the highest degree of fault and can provide the mens rea
for all crimes. Usually it is concerned with whether a person intends
a particular result or consequence. However the concept of intention
is not defined in any Act of Parliament and the courts have had
difficulty in formulating a clear definition. In the case of Maloney,
the House of Lords stated that foresight of consequences is not
intention but only evidence of intention. It is for the jury to decide
whether the accused intended his actions. The test for this is laid
down in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It is a subjective test i.e.
the accused must have intended the consequences of his actions.
Intention must also not be mistaken with desire as long as it remains
a thought this was clearly stated in Cunliffe v Goodman 1950 that
intention is a state of affairs 'that a person does more than merely
contemplate'. Intention must also not be confused with motive. The
motive for committing a crime may be a good one but if the intention
is present then the men...
... middle of paper ...
...s decision has never been overruled nor has it been
followed.
The Law Commission has suggested in the Draft Bill 1998 that intention
should be defined in the following way:
'A person acts…intentionally with no respect to a result when
* It is his purpose to cause it, or
* Although it is not his purpose to cause it, he knows that it would
occur in the ordinary course of events if he were to succeed in his
purpose of causing some other result'
A statutory definition would be an improvement since intention would
no longer be the subject of precedent but interpretation. This would
make directions to the jury less complicated. If juries were clear as
to the meaning of intention there may be more convictions for
manslaughter than murder and sentencing policies would have to be
adopted to accommodate this.
caused him to murder not only the king, but all those who had any ties to him.
Consequence argument means taking a radical claim between compatibilism and determinism. Compatibilism is the free will to do whatever one wishes to do because it is in their own nature. In the free will debate of “Consequence Argument,” Peter van Inwagen, the author of An Essay on Free Will, takes on a compatibilist view by arguing that determinism is not true because one cannot be held responsible for their own actions. Determinism is the belief that human actions or free will have either a positive or an effect in the future. John Martin Fischer, professor of philosophy at the University of California, takes on a determinist view by arguing that compatibilism is never true because one must be held responsible for their own actions. Between both views on compatibilism and determinism, I will explain how the Consequence Argument can be challenged.
The matter presented here is an interesting one. On one hand, both Bob and Jack had equal goals and equal intentions. But, only Jack was successful, but does that really make a difference? Should one be punished more simply because the other is a bad shot?
3. Discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James on free will and determinism?
Consider this argument: 'If the future is already determined, then it must be possible to know in advance what will happen. But, if that is so, then free will is impossible.' Do you agree? Is there any satisfactory way of acting freely if determinism is true?
Choices that people make have a giant place in their lives. Most of us consider that we do these choices freely, that we have free will to make these choices. The point that most of us miss is free will is not simple as is it looks like. When one makes choices doesn’t he consider that what would that choices lead him to? Therefore does he make those choices for his benefits or his desires to make those choices? Does the environment push him to make those choices or does he have the free will to ignore his own environment? Philosopher and writes splits around those questions. There is different thesis, beliefs about free will. Some say that we are conditioned from birth with qualities of our personality, social standing and attitudes. That we do not have free will, our choices shapes up by the world we born in to. Some others believe that we born as a blank paper we could shape by the occasions or choices that we make freely. Marry Midgley on her article “Freedom and Heredity” defends that without certain limitations for instance our talents, capacities, natural feelings we would not need to use free will. Those limitations lead us to use free will and make choices freely. She continues without our limitations we do not need to use free will. Free will needs to be used according to our needs but when mentioning need not as our moral need as our needs to what could we bring up with our capacities. We need to use our free will without stereotypes. Furthermore free will should be shaped by the choice that would lead us good consequences.
...on's own taping system he had installed ultimately led to his downfall which proves that his own mistake caused it.
Throughout the history of mankind there have been numerous cases in which people were victims of oppression or hate. Among these cases the sole reasoning behind this oppression or hate being based on the perception of others. History has shown that society is responsible for labeling groups of people, generally these labels are misleading.
Free will, many believe it (free will) is only a fabrication and humans are at the mercy of natural law; determinist theories suggest that humankind is no more than a mere pawn, destined to carry out the grand design the universe has so concretely laid out. Others (Compatibilist), like to think that although, mankind is under universal law, decisions are ultimately made by individuals thus, free will must be real. The Libertarians like to think humanity's fate is left entirely up to the common people and therefore, any action(s) taken are simply choices whether they be admirable or atrocious. In the present day, the question of is free will real still seems like a complex riddle that mankind is destined to ponder for an eternity.
In order to do this he is led on a path of multiple murder and deceit.
this evil was occurring. If He was all-powerful, He would have the power to stop
More often than not, the outcomes of events that occur in a person’s life is the product of the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy. It is that which “occurs when a person’s expectations of an event make the outcome more likely to occur than would otherwise have been true” (Adler and Towne, Looking Out, Looking In 66). Or restated, as Henry Ford once put it, “If you think you can, you can. If you think you can’t, you’re right!” This brief research paper touches on the two types of self-fulfilling prophecies, those that are self-imposed and those that are imposed by others. Additionally, it gives a discussion on how great of an influence it is in each person’s life, both positively and negatively, and how it consequently helps to mold one’s self-concept and ultimately one’s self.
Jean- Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract introduces the concept of what is commonly referred to as the common good. The common good is described as the end result that benefits the most people within a state or society. To be fully achieved as a collective unit, the common good must be agreed upon according to another political term: the general will. The general will is the desire of all the members in the state, which is put in place for the good of the society. The authenticity of the general will is then protected through jurisdictive laws that are put into place by the sovereign. Rousseau states that the general will is the will of all people, and it is the best choice for a state, only
...ings that he does are so not human-like which makes him evil. Another instance that
1. Being too traditional or simply just following traditions in writing is looked down upon