Motive is a psychological fact which can be trace from the conduct of the accused / suspect. On the other hand, intention is a decision to execute an action or not. In other words, intention is the result of the motive and it established a higher level of culpability as it has caused harm to others.
Example
Manfred stole a watch from a shop because he wants to give it as a gift to a massage therapist which helps him massage daily. The motive in this case is Manfred wish to gives the massage therapist a gift and the intention in this case is to steal the watch from the shop.
Justification on Guilt
Evidence of motive is relevant and material in criminal cases but it cannot stands on its own to convict a person. In other words, motive has to collaborate with other relevant facts in order to prove the fact in issue.Contrary, intention is a direct evidence and and clear proof that the accused has committed the crime and hence it can stands on its own to convict the culprit.
Decided Cases
Nath Singh v R
Fact
In this case the accused was tried for the murder of Karnail Singh. Evidence was led to show that Karnail Singh was extorting money from the accused on the grounds that he knew the accused had killed one Bhan Singh. Eventually, this fact was admitted to show motive for this murder.
Judgement
The evidence to show alleged motive for a crime is admissible even though such evidence suggest the commision of another crime by the accused.
could you give your views on motive or intention on the recent massacre at Connecticut?
ReplyDeleteThe intention of the shooter Adam Lanza in the recent massacre at Connecticut is clear whereby he wanted to kill the people in the elementary institute and his own mother. Whereas the motive of Adam Lanza is hard to be identified due to he was described as suffering from a personality disorder and being "somewhat autistic" by his older brother Ryan, 24. Hence, it is hard for me as a reasonable to judge his motive. However, from the action (Actus Reas) by killing the people in the institute with fire arms and the intention (Mens reas) to kill those people are enough to convict him without having to take the element of motive into consideration.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy we cannot convict a person solely base on motive?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedear suhui
ReplyDeletemotive itself is not as strong compare to intention. In criminal law, in order to convict someone of the offence he carried out, eg: murder. the elements of action and intention must be there. When Ali killed Baba, that shows that Ali has carried out the action of murdering. Next, the intention of Ali to kill Baba has to be proved in order to convict him. Motive level is lower compare to intention and it needs to be supported by other evidence for it to stand. :)
Is it a crime to have intention and decision to harm someone even before the action?
ReplyDeleteDear ksong,
ReplyDeleteIt is yet a crime. This is because in order to commit a crime you must have committed the crime at the first place(action) together with the intention to do so. Action and intention are two essential elements that have to be prove. Hopefully I do clear your doubts:-D
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan I know the full citation for this case Nath Singh v R?
ReplyDelete