Describe the difference between motive and intent. Provide an example. Describe situations where motive is relevant in criminal cases and where it is not
What will be an ideal response?
Experts disagree over the difference between motive and intent. Probably for this reason, they clarify the difference with an example: If a man murders his wife for her money—his intent was to kill; his motive was to get her money. It's often said that motive is irrelevant to criminal liability; good motive is no defense to criminal conduct, and a bad motive can't make legal conduct criminal. Sometimes motive is relevant, and sometimes it's not. Greed, hate, and jealousy are always relevant to proving the intent to kill. Compassion may well affect discretionary decisions, such as police decisions to arrest, prosecutors to charge, and judges to sentence, say, mercy killers. Motive is also important in some defenses. For example, it's a defense to the crime of escaping from prison if a prisoner breaks out to save her life from a rapidly spreading fire (the defense of necessity). Finally, motive is sometimes an element of a crime itself. For example, one of the attendant circumstances of burglary accompanying the act of breaking and entering someone else's property is "the purpose of committing a crime" once inside.
You might also like to view...
Which U.S. Supreme Court case determined that inmates whose personal property was destroyed by staff during cell searches had no legal recourse for recovery?
a. Bell v. Wolfish b. Hudson v. Palmer c. U.S. v. Nix d. Farmer v. Brennan
Minnesota v. Murphy (1984 ) held that a probationer, attending a required probation meeting, and who is required by law and his probation contract to answer a probation officer's questions truthfully, is not in custodial interrogation when asked
about a crime by his probation officer. Indicate whether the statement is true or false
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) is commonly known as ________ Mae.
Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).
The significance of the United States v. Patane (2005) case is the U.S. Supreme Court's holding that:
a. physical evidence taken in violation of Miranda must be excluded b. law enforcement officers can cure legal mistakes made with Miranda c. statements taken in violation of Miranda are poisoned fruit and excludable d. physical evidence obtained in violation of Miranda will not be excluded