3 Answers

  1. “Punish not only for wrongdoing, but also for intent”
    How do you understand this statement?

    most likely, this is an attempt to deal with evil at its root, because it is the intention that begins to be realized in misdemeanors. It's like what Christ taught –

    27 You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ” You shall not commit adultery.”
    28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
    29 But if your right eye offends you, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.
    30 And if your right hand offends you, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members should perish, and not that your whole body should be cast into hell.(Matthew 5: 27-30)

  2. The answer above is completely incorrect. Intent in law is a synonym for the word intent. So, the presence of one intent that is not realized, that is, when the objective side is not realized, there is no act (actions and omissions that are an element of the crime are not committed), cannot be criminal! The man decided to rob his neighbor, but did not take any action, just wrote on a piece of paper-what, punish him? Nonsense!

    You describe the act when the subject turns the objective side, do not mislead people! These are the stages of committing a crime, distinguishing between completed crimes and unfinished ones (preparation, attempt, completed crime). By the way, for an unfinished crime, they are also not always brought to justice. It depends on the object that is being attempted, on the public danger of the crime.

    Punishment for intent is a category outside of jurisprudence (I won't talk about totalitarian states and their ilk right now). It can be a method of education, an element of a worldview, something related to our everyday life (and let everyone judge for themselves how useful it is, how necessary it is in life, and how correct it is). But this should not be brought into the sphere of law.

  3. It's very simple. Punishing not only for the act itself, but also for intentions is absolutely correct practice. Now I will try to explain this as simply as possible and in my own words.

    In general, if you go into the theory of criminal law, you can find out that a crime consists of 4 parts:
    1) the object of the crime (these are those social relations that are protected by law, and which the criminal attempts)
    2) the subject of the crime (actually, this is the criminal himself. however, it should be remembered that the criminal can not be any person, even if he attempts to kill the object. For example, a child under the age of 14 or a disabled person cannot be a criminal. there are several such criteria)
    3) the objective side (here they distinguish criminal action/omission. secondary criteria are consequences, causal relationship, environment, method, means, etc.)
    4) subjective side (this is the internal psychological state of the criminal. his attitude to his crime and its consequences – that is, his intention)

    If the crime lacks at least one of these criteria (for example, the subjective side – the person did not know and could not have known that their actions create danger), then this act will no longer be a crime.

    Now I come to the point of the question itself: I will try to explain with examples. Let's say a person wants (has the intention) to deal cruelly with his brother. However, the brother is stronger and receives only minor injuries. Agree, it would be wrong to judge the criminal only for minor injuries, because in other circumstances, he could have killed his brother. That is why he will be judged on intent – that is, for attempted murder, and for this the article is much stricter.

    Second example: a criminal wants to rob a cash register and get $ 5,000. However, the cash register turns out to be half-empty and he takes only$15. Again, it is wrong to judge him for a robbery in the amount of$ 15, because if he had come, for example, a couple of hours earlier, he would have taken all 15,000$. And in this case, he will be tried not for minor robbery, but for attempted major robbery (forgive me for the lack of terminology).

    I hope I was able to answer your question.

Leave a Reply