Decoding Legal Intent
Intent, is defined as an "aim, an objective, or a purpose, for which a person acts." Its scope in law is expansive and can range from an individual intending their actions to cause harm to befall themselves or others to an individual intending to create the mere appearance of an object. However, it is a vital element of all criminal cases.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term as follows: "In general, the state of a individual’s mind that directs his/her actions towards a specific object or result. . . . The condition of mind which exists when a person acts with purpose (or design) to cause the result that is prohibited by the criminal statute under which he or she is charged." In other words, a situation becomes a crime because an individual intended to commit that crime.
Because many crimes require a certain degree of intent before they can be crimes, there are different classes of intent. General intent merely requires willfully committing an act without regard for the consequences. (For example, a general intent to do something can easily transform into an intent to murder.)
Other classes of intent include specific intent, and transferred intent . Specific intent is the actual intent to cause a consequence that can be used to infer that there was intent to cause the harmful result. For example, if an individual punches someone else in the face with the intent to physically harm the victim, the court can infer that the defendant’s specific intent was to cause physical harm to the victim.
Transferred intent involves the unintentional harm of one victim when the defendant intended to cause the same harm on another victim. In this case, the court can transfer the defendant’s intent to the intended victim and impose liability as though the defendant had accomplished his original intent. For example, if a defendant intended to shoot and kill Victim 1, but accidentally shot and killed Victim 2, the court will hold the defendant criminally responsible for the death of Victim 2 because their intent to kill Victim 1 is transferred to Victim 2.
Because it is so often used in law, there are also varying levels of intent. These levels of intent can hinge on what prosecutors must prove, such as in civil cases, which may be a preponderance of evidence, or in criminal cases, where the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Intent in Criminal Law Proceedings
Intent plays a key role in criminal law. Prosecutors often have to prove a defendant’s "mens rea" (mind state) in committing the crime: In other words, the mental state required to commit your crime. Intent is not always easy to prove and the defendant’s knowledge is even more difficult to determine.
The law recognizes varying levels of intent. An intentional act can be made knowingly, knowingly and willingly, recklessly, or with extreme indifference to human life. For most criminal offenses, a lesser degree of intent, such as recklessness, is sufficient for a prosecutor to prove guilt. In other words, a person commits a crime if he or she acts recklessly even if he or she does not intend the harm that results from the act or omission. Reckless persons are aware of the risk before them and consciously ignore it. It is generally more difficult for prosecutors to show that a defendant intentionally committed an act, or acted with intent to Bates (that is, purposely or willfully acted) than that he or she simply acted recklessly.
The reason for this is that intentional acts are both premeditated and irreversible, since a person who purposefully and intentionally harms another human being has planned the act prior to it occurring. A reckless act, however, is one where a person responsible for the safety of a third person negligently fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk to that third person. This means that, unlike with certain intentional acts, the crime would not have occurred without some outside force.
Intent plays a role in determining the severity of a charge filed by the prosecutor. For example, there are many variations of homicide. If a prosecutor determines that a crime was not accident nor reckless inattentiveness but, rather, intentional, the homicide charge is assumed to be murder, regardless of whether the person charged envisioned it or not. The defendant’s frame of mind, i.e., intent, must be present. A prosecutor and the jury who hears the circumstances surrounding the case divide the crime on the basis of intent into murder, manslaughter, and use of deadly force; the related crime of homicide by assault, and negligent homicide. Intentional homicide and reckless homicide the defendant’s frame of mind at the time are the two most serious forms of crimes. A prosecutor, then, charges a defendant with intent-to-kill murder if the defendant acted with purpose to cause death, or if he or she knowingly caused the death of another after premeditation and deliberation. The charge of intent-to-kill murder presumes that the defendant conceived of the decision to incur the fatal harm prior to the act, which the prosecutor claims is what separates intentional killing from unintentional killing.
The Role of Intent in Civil Law
Similar to the criminal system, in the civil courts intent can be necessary to prove in certain cases. If you’ve been injured due to someone else’s actions, intent will likely play a major role in your case. For example, if you’re attacked by someone, the attack itself is to be considered intentional if the attacker meant to cause harm. However, that isn’t always the case. Sometimes you are attacked unintentionally, meaning you got caught in the crossfire of someone else’s actions. In that instance, negligence is a bigger issue.
Another example is drunk driving. If a driver is drunk and hits someone, their actions were most likely intentional and they could face charges from the criminal court and seek financial compensation from the civil court. If someone is driving on the highway and is not paying attention, thus causing a car accident, the driver is not liable for damages since they didn’t mean to cause harm to anyone.
In order to seek additional compensation in civil lawsuits, you likely have to prove that the accused acted intentionally and with a malicious intent, hence proving intent. In some cases, it could also work against you and your lawsuit if you claim that the person acted intentionally. But there also are times that claim is in your best interest. For example, in a battery case it is much worse to mean to harm someone than just bumping into them. Intent makes all the difference in those cases when you consider the criminal and civil penalties.
Developing Proof of Intent in Court
Evidence of intent is a critical aspect of many legal cases, providing the backbone for proving allegations of wrongdoing or criminal accusations. Lawyers, prosecutors, and other legal professionals utilize various methods to establish intent in court, relying on a spectrum of evidence types.
One common method of proving intent is through witness testimonies. Witnesses may be called to the stand to provide their accounts of the situation, backing up or refuting a claim. For instance, in a criminal case, a prosecutor might call to the stand a witness who claims to have viewed a suspect committing the crime in question. Such a testimony might imply intent used in the act, perhaps identifying the suspect as a murderer, even if no direct evidence is available.
Scientific and forensic evidence is another significant factor in establishing intent. In this category of evidence, physical evidence plays a major role—perhaps a bullet used in a homicide or a blood trail leading from a crime scene. Items of physical evidence can show intent by placing a defendant at the scene of a crime or revealing evidence of wrongdoing that corresponds to a claimed mental state of the defendant.
Direct statements made by a defendant can also factor into a showing of intent. For example, in a robbery case, recorded phone conversations or text messages may reveal that the defendant intended to rob someone while carrying a weapon. Such evidence may help lead to a conviction.
What if the evidence is inconclusive? In legal proceedings, circumstantial evidence can still play a vital part in establishing intent. For example, a sugar company might point to a plaintiff’s history of diabetes and candy consumption to show that the plaintiff must have been familiar with the side effects of overconsumption of candy. Though the plaintiff in the legal case has testified that he or she has no recollection of such side effects, circumstantial evidence would suggest otherwise.
Though it may be difficult to present direct evidence of intent, circumstantial evidence, witnessed testimony, and forensic evidence combine to create an overall picture of intent. This picture—compiled by legal professionals and presented in courts—helps to make a case against a defendant.
Legal Complexities of Intent
At its core, intent is a human concept. As it relates to the law, it has always been difficult for the courts to determine a person’s cognitive state at a particular point in time, particularly in the context of electronic communications where there is no physical presence in which to observe intent.
Even aside from electronic communications, many of us hide or deny our true intentions, even from ourselves. So proving "intent" on any particular issue can be difficult. The task is further complicated by difficulties in interpreting language properly.
The one thing that can be said with certainty is that it is rarely up to the judge to decide in a vacuum – often, both parties will present exactly conflicting versions of what happened , including the mental state and intent of each of the actors in whatever event is being challenged. This is compounded by the fact that technological advances in the past several decades have created new ways to communicate that did not exist before, and the law has struggled to keep up with adequately characterizing such methods.
Even if the court were to rely on broad legal definitions, however, intent often requires subjective interpretation. For example, to be culpable for wrongful acts (criminal liability for murder or civil liability for tortious interference with a business relationship) only requires "wrongful" intent, which compounds the difficulties of determining intent.
Case Analyses: Intent in the Real World
Consider these notable cases where it was argued that intent was an overriding factor in a defendant’s actions. In the 1934 case of Smith v. New England Airlines, Inc., 18 N.E.2d 632 (Mass. 1934), an airplane crash killed five people. Certain other passengers were also injured, but survived. Both groups filed separate actions for their respective injuries, yet the plaintiffs shared many common facts and theories of law. For example, both claimed that a "retaliatory" claim from the aviation company, because two of the victims were its employees, barred their actions.
In 1937, the Massachusetts State Supreme Court, in analyzing the issue of intent, held that "knowledge of circumstances which would cause an ordinarily prudent person to anticipate harm is the same as intent". Additionally, held that, "the term ‘acting intentionally’ means to act with a specific design to bring about a given results; that to act ‘knowingly’ mean to act voluntarily and deliberately, not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason, but with knowledge of the consequences." In 1941, Ford v. United States, 57 F. Supp. 919 (E.D.Va. 1944), the court reiterated intent by stating the following: "Acting intentionally embraces not only manifest intention but also design or purpose." The Supreme Court has said that (statutes addressing these actions) "aim a new very remote and indirect consequences, which might have followed unless prevented by careful regulations on the subject." The case application of intention was expanded in Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009). In this case the Supreme Court found pharmaceutical drug makers liable for consequences that resulted in unintended harm due to an incomplete warning label. Wyeth had been directed by the FDA not to include more specific warnings on their product. However, the court found the company liable under state Court law as they acted intentionally in failing to include the additional information.
The Future of Intent and the Law
The future of intent in the law is likely to be influenced considerably by advancements in technology, as well as shifts in societal norms.
With the rise of "big data," lawsuits have become more complex and settlements can be incredibly unwieldy. Algorithms will serve to simplify even the messiest of cases, especially when it comes to uncovering the psychological intent of defendants.
For example, wrongful termination cases often require an ex-employee to prove not only that he or she was fired from his or her job, but also that the employer had malicious intent when they were terminated. With big data, a company’s actions will be sliced and diced, stripped down to its very core. This will then be analyzed and translated into complex algorithms that will make determining intent much easier — easier still if the algorithm could be used to predict a company’s next actions based on previous performance.
This has implications far beyond wrongful termination cases.
If algorithms could serve to more easily determine the malicious intent of a company, they might be able to determine the intent of any defendant. If plaintiffs’ attorneys have the evidence, the social networks, the raw data that prove the company’s previous misdeeds, no matter how long ago, justice can be served. Further, this information can be delivered to a jury pool beforehand in order to bias them in one direction or another.
While it might sound like an episode of CSI, the technology is already here. It’s just a question of seeing how it’ll be used.
From a civil standpoint , intent will allow attorneys to make arguments that reach further and wilder than most minds find amenable. But by the same token, it can set new standards for negligence and liability. For example, if data it is possible to prove that a company should have known that their products contained harmful chemicals — which led to cancer in claimants — then the company should pay for not only the health costs, but possibly also punitive damages, i.e., damages that go above and beyond the harm caused, for failing to disclose that information.
Intent has always been a somewhat abstract concept. One person may see one thing while another sees another. In the past, intent has been defined by psychological experts paid to vouch for the definitions their employers favored. But when it is able to establish by way of algorithms that it can accurately predict a person’s behavior: what they’ll do next, what they’ve done before, their motivations, their intent and their future actions, then the law will not only evolve; it will arrive at a new future.
As mentioned previously, intent keeps the law honest: It prevents criminals from escaping justice, while ensuring that the innocent are not wrongfully convicted because of their intentions. It’s a check that benefits everyone, while also allowing plaintiffs’ and defendants’ attorneys to make more persuasive cases.
A couple of things are certain: Intent will play an increasingly important role in our justice system in the future, and with the rise of technology, this evolution will happen far faster than we might expect.
Leave a Reply