Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | diego-alonso-collantes |
View: | 218 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 1 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
UniversityPressScholarshipOnlineOxfordScholarshipOnline
PhilosophicalFoundationsofCriminalLawR.A.DuffandStuartGreen
Printpublicationdate:2011PrintISBN-13:9780199559152PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:May2011DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199559152.001.0001
IntentionasaMarkerofMoralCulpabilityandLegalPunishabilityMichaelSMoore(ContributorWebpage)
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199559152.003.0009
AbstractandKeywords
Thischapterexaminestherolethatintentionplaysindefiningthemostseriousformsofcriminality.Itarguesthatthecriminallawasitnowexistspresupposeswhatisessentiallyafolkpsychologyofintention,andproposesasanalternativeamorenuancedandcomplexconceptionofintentionthatwouldtakeintoaccountrecentdevelopmentsinphilosophyofmind,cognitivescience,andmoralpsychology.
Keywords:criminallaw,intentions,criminality,moralresponsibility,folkpsychology
1THEROLESOFINTENTIONINASSESSINGRESPONSIBILITYINLAWANDMORALSTheconceptofanintentionservesfourimportantfunctionsintheattributionofbothmoralresponsibilityandlegalliabilityinthelawoftortsandofcrimes.Thefirstoftheseisasamarker(arguablythemarker)ofseriousculpabilityinthedoing(p.180) ofwrongfulactions.Asthelawsofbothcrimesandoftortsrecognize,doingsomewrongfulaction
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 2 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
becauseoneintendedtodoitmeritsgreaterblameandmoreseveresanctionsthandoesdoingthatsamewrongfulactionrecklesslyornegligently.Thisimplicationofintentionforresponsibilityislearnedearlyonbychildren,whoframeseriousaccusationsofothersintermsoftheirdoingthingsonpurpose.AsJusticeHolmesfamouslyputit,evenadogknowsthedifferencebetweenbeingstumbledoverandbeingkicked.1Criminallawshareswithdogsandchildrenthisemphasisonintentionasessentialtoseriousblame.AstheUSSupremeCourtonceputit:Thecontentionthataninjurycanamounttoacrimeonlywheninflictedbyintentionisnoprovincialortransientnotion.Itisuniversalandpersistentinmaturesystemsoflaw[and]isalmostasinstinctiveasthechild'sfamiliarexculpatory,ButIdidn'tmeanto2
Thesecondofthesefunctionsdealswithwrongdoing,notculpability.Morespecifically,intentionplaysaroleinjustificationofotherwisewrongfulbehaviour.Itthusdealswithpermissibilityinthisrole,notculpability.Intentioniscommonlythoughttomarktheborderofpermissibleconsequentialistjustificationforotherwisecategoricallyforbiddenactions.ThisisthewellknownDoctrineofDoubleEffect,accordingtowhichgoodconsequencesmaybeusedtojustifythedoingofsomewrongsuchaskillingoftheinnocentsolongassuchkillingswereasideeffectorby-productoftheactor'schainofreasons;butifthekillingwasintended,eitherasanendorasameans,thosesamegoodconsequencesareineligibletobeusedtojustifysuchactions.3
Third,intentioniscommonlythoughttobeattherootofhumanagency.Thisistheideathattheverypossibilityofpersonsdoingactionsdependsonpersonshavingintentions.Theoldwayofputtingthiswastosaythateveryactionmustbeintentionalundersomedescriptionofit.Amoremodernrenditionistosaythateveryactionbeginswithanintention,inthesensethatintentionsmustbetheimmediatecauseofthosebodilymovementsthroughwhichpersonsact,forthosemovementstobeactionsatall.4
Fourth,intentionsarecruciallyinvolvedintheexerciseofnormativepowersbypersons.Anormativepowerisanabilitytochangethecontentofourrightsandresponsibilities.5WhenIpromisetodosomeactionA,forexample,itiscommonly(p.181) thoughtthatIhavechangedmyobligations:nowIamobligatedtodoA,whereasbeforemypromiseIwasfreenottodoA.Ihavevoluntarilycreatedsomethingthatwasnottherebefore,andmyabilitytodothisisapower.Intentionisboundupwithnormativepowersbecausethevalidexerciseofanormativepowerdepends,atleastinpart,ontheintentionoftheholderofthepower.Tocontinuetheexampleofpromising,utterancesthataccidentallyhavetheformofapromisedonothavetheforceofapromise:theutterermustintendtopromise.6Asthecontractlawyerssay,thereisnobindingpromiseifthereisanintentnottobebound.7Inthecontextofresponsibilityassessmentsfornon-promissoryobligations,thispowers-markingroleofintentionsappearsintheguiseofconsent.Whenavictimconsentstobetouchedbyanother,thewrongnessoftouchingevaporates.AsHeidiHurdcolourfullyputsit,thisisthemoralmagicofconsent:itchangesrapeintolove-making,batteryintosport,trespassintolicence,andslaveryintomarriage.8Butconsentdoesthis,asHurdalsoshows,9onlybyvirtueoftheintentoftheonewhoconsents.
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 3 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Interestingasareallfouroftheserolesofintentionvis--visresponsibility,Ishallfocusinthischapteronlyonthefirst,theuseofintentiontomarkseriousculpability.Toassessintention'sroleheremorepreciselyrequiresfirstthatwestepbacktosomemoregeneralconsiderationsabouttherelationsofresponsibilitytoculpability,whichIshallpursueinthenextsection.
2RESPONSIBILITY,CULPABILITY,ANDINTENTIONSWhenwesaythatintentionmarksmostseriousculpability,whatexactlyarewesaying?Wecouldbesayingthatdoinganactionintentionallyratherthannegligentlyincreasesoverallblameworthiness.Whilethisistrue,itdoesn'tcapturewhereintentionfitsintothecriteriabywhichweparceloutpraiseandblame.Toisolatemorepreciselytheroleofintentionhererequiresthatwedistinguishculpabilityfromresponsibility,whichInowproposetodo,startingfirstwiththemoregeneralnotion,thatofresponsibility.
Togetstartedwithresponsibility,considerthecartoonbelow.10(p.182)
Asthecartoonillustrates,responsibilityhasseveralusagesinidiomaticEnglish.Onecanhavecertainresponsibilities,inthesensethatonehascertainobligations;onecanberesponsibleinthesensethatonegenerallytakescareofhisobligations;onecanbearesponsibleadult,inthesensethatonehasthecapacities(rationalityandautonomy)tobeheldresponsibleforfailureindoingwhatoneisobligatedtodo.11Thesensepertinenthereisnoneofthese,however.Therelevantsenseisthatofbeingresponsibleforsomeharmorsomeotherunhappystateofaffairs.
Evenrestrictedtoresponsibilityforsomeharm,therearesomefurtherdistinctionstobedrawn.Wemightsay,thestormwasresponsibleforthelossoflife,andwemightsay,theshipownerwasheldresponsibleintortdamagesforthelossoflife.12Puttingasideprimitiveanimism,stormsarenotmorallyresponsibleforanything;allthatismeanthereisthatthestormwasacause(orthecause)ofthelossoflife.Likewise,theshipowner'sresponsibilityisbetterphrasedaslegalliability.Aliabilityis(inHohfeld'swell-knownlogic)
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 4 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
theabsenceofanyimmunity.13Weneedasenseofresponsibilityforharmthatisdifferentfromeitherofthese.Whatwewanttoisolateisasenseofresponsibilitythatinajustlegalsystemgrounds(justifies)legalliabilityincriminallawandperhapsintorts;andasensethatisinturnpartlygrounded,butnotconstitutedby,causalresponsibility.Responsibilityinthesenserelevanthereisakindofliability,buttheliabilityistoamoral,notalegal,sanction:toberesponsibleforaharmistobemorallyblameworthyforthatharm.Theharm,(p.183) inotherwords,goesonone'smoralledger;inagoodnovel,orinStPeter'sreckoningattheGates,itshowsupasademerit.
Noticethattosaythisdoesnottellusanythingaboutwhensomeoneisresponsibleforsomeharm;itonlygivesalogicalconsequenceoftheirbeingsoresponsible,viztheyareblameworthyforit.Tosaywhensomeoneisblameworthyistohaveatheoryofresponsibility.ThedominanttheoryunderlyingAnglo-Americancriminallawisthisone.ApersonPisresponsibleforsomeharmHifandonlyif:14
A.Pisamoralagent,meaningthathehasthecapacities(ofrationality,autonomy,emotionality)thatanimals,theinsane,theveryyoung,andtheveryintoxicatedlack;andB.Pisguiltyofwrongdoing,meaningthat:
1.PperformedsomevoluntaryactionA;and2.A(infactandproximately)causedH;and3.CausingHisprimafacieprohibitedbyoneofmorality'sstringentprohibitions;and4.TherearenofeaturesofAcausingHthatdistinguishitfromrun-of-themillcasesofAcausingHandthatcouldjustifythecausingofHonthisoccasion(iePhadnoagent-relativepermissionorconsequentialistjustificationforviolatinghisprimafacieobligation);and
C.Pwasculpableinhiswrongdoing,meaningthat:1.PwasmotivatedbyanintentiontocauseH(alternatively:PbelievedAwouldcauseHwithsomedegreeoflikelihood,orPshouldhavesobelieved);and2.P'sintentionorpredictivebeliefin(1)wasformedincircumstanceswherehehadbothadequatecapacityandafairopportunitytousehiscapacities,nottodoA(iePhadnoexcuse).
Whenlegaltheoristsspeakoftherelationshipbetweenpunishmentandresponsibility,itisthissenseofresponsibilitythattheyhaveinmind.Turningnowtoculpability,thewordisoftenusedasasynonymforresponsibilityinthesensejustarticulated,vizmoralblameworthiness.Tobeculpable,inthissense,justistobeblameworthy.Moreusefulforourpurposesistodistinguishtwolessinclusivesenses,sensesthatcorrespondtothecriminallawtheoristsdistinctionsbetweenspecialandgeneralmensrea(guiltymind).15
ApersonPisculpable(inthespecialsenseoftheword)withrespecttohavingwronglycausedsomeparticularharmhwhen:
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 5 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
1.PeitherintendssometypeofharmHtobecausedbyP'sactionA,orPbelievesthatHwillbesocaused,orPwouldbelievethisifhewerereasonable;and(p.184)2.theparticularharmhthatPhascausedisaninstanceofthetypeofharmHthatPintended;orhisaninstanceofthetypeofharmHthatPforesaw;orhisaninstanceofthetypeofharmHtheriskofwhichmadePnegligentonthisoccasion.16
Itisinthissenseofculpabilitythatcriminallawyersintendwhentheyspeakoftheculpabilityrequirementsofthecriminallaw,orwhentheysay,Pdidthewrongthingbuthehasnoculpability.17
Oneisculpableinthegeneralsensewhenconditionsofpossibleexcusearetakenintoaccount.Diminishedcapacitytoexercisesoundjudgment(byanagentgenerallypossessingsuchcapacitiesnoidiots,stones,mentallyill,orinfantsallowed)canarisebyvirtueofhumanthreats,naturalnecessities,overwhelmingemotionsoffear,anger,orhatred,thecravingsofaddiction,andthelike.Evenwhentheproverbialcoolhandhasnodiminishedcapacities,circumstancesmaybesuchthathehasnofairopportunitytoexercisehisundiminishedcapacities.18InanoldJackBennyskit,thehold-upmanthreatensBennywithyourmoney,oryourlife.Benny,playingonhisfamouscheapness,hesitates,saying,I'mthinking.WhenBennyhandsoverthemoneyhiscapacitiesarefine,onlyhedidnothavetheopportunitythattherestofushavetokeepbothhismoneyandhislife.Oneisculpableinthisgeneralsensewhereoneisculpableinthespecialsense(articulatedearlier)incircumstancesoffairopportunityandadequatecapacitytohavechosenotherwise.
Theroleofintentioninallofthisshouldbeplain.Intentionisamarkerofculpabilityinthespecialsensejustdistinguished.Moreover,intentionisatthetopofthescaleofculpabilityinthespecialsense:intendingtocausesomeharmHismoreculpablethanmerelyforeseeingthatsomeactAwillcauseH,orbeingwillingtoriskthatAwillcauseH.19Itisinthissensethatthefirstroleofintentionistobemorepreciselydefined.Itisinthiswaythatintentionisthemarkerofmostseriousculpability,anditisinthiswaythatintentionincreasesoverallblameworthiness(orresponsibility,inthesensedefined).
Intentionisofcoursenotaloneinitscapacitytoaffectoverallblameworthiness.Degreesofcausalcontribution,degreesofcounterfactualdependence,degreesofobjectiverisk,degreesofjustification,degreesofexcuse,degreesofmoralagency,alsohavethiscapacity.20Butintentionisaloneinthewayinwhichitaffectsoverall(p.185)blameworthiness:intentionaffectsculpabilityinthespecialsensejustdefinedandnoneoftheseotheritemsdo.
3ORDINARYANDLEGALCONCEPTSOFINTENTIONWhatareintentions?Anolderstyleofphilosophyofmindtranslatedsuchquestionsfromthematerialmodetowhatwascalledthelinguisticmode.Thequestionthenbecame,whatdowemeanbyourusagesoftheword,intention?.Despitetherefusalofcontemporaryphilosophytoequatethesetwomodes,askingafterthecommonconcept
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 6 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
ofanintentionwillbeausefulplacetostart.21Findingthecriminallawtobeasinstructiveasordinaryspeech,Ishallinthissectionbrieflyminebothbodiesofdiscoursefortheirmeaning(s)ofintentandliketerms.
Givingthemeaningofatermusedinadiscretebodyofdiscourse(suchasordinaryspeechorthecriminallaw)isnotusuallyamatteroflocatingsomeauthoritativedefinition.Asempiricallinguisticsandordinarylanguagephilosophyareequallyfondofpointingout,givingsuchmeaningsisratheramatterofteasingouttheimplicitcontoursofsomeconceptfromthatconcept'susageinthewholebodyofdiscourse.Definitions(includingthoseprovidedinotherwiseauthoritativesourcessuchasdictionariesorpenalcodes)areonlysomeone'sfallible,contestabletheoryastotheshapeofthoseimplicitcontours.Whatfollowsisthusmyownreconstructionofthemeaningofintention,frombothordinaryandlegalusages,notingthedifferencebetweenthetwowhererelevant.
Itiscommontodistinguishusingintendandintentionasaverbornoun,ontheonehand,fromusingintentionalandintentionallyasanadjectiveoradverb.22Noticethedifferenceitmakesinscenarioslikethisone:23youandIareinsomegradeBAmericanWesternmovie(probablystarringRonaldReagan);wearecrouchedbehindsomerockssoastoavoiddetectionbythesavages,whoareallaroundus;arattlesnakeisnexttous,coiledtostrike,andI(knowingthatthesoundwillrevealourlocation)shootthesnakedeadsothatitdoesnotstrikeus.Ididnot,inordinary(p.186) speech,intend(verb)toalerttheIndians;norwastheintention(noun)withwhichIshottoalerttheIndians.Still,IdidalerttheIndianswithmyshot,asIknewIwould:didIalerttheIndiansintentionally(adverb),orunintentionally,orneither?WasmyactofalertingtheIndiansintentional(adjective),unintentional,orneither?
Ordinaryusageisdeterminateabouttheverb/nounmeaning:tohaveapredictivebeliefisnottohaveanintentionandtosobelieveisnottosointend.Ordinaryusageisindeterminateabouttheadverb/adjectivemeaning:foreseenconsequencesarenotcomfortablyregardedasintentionalorunintentional.24
Sometimesthequestionofintentionalityarises,notwithrespecttotheconsequencesofouractions(suchasalertingtheIndians),butwithrespecttocircumstances.25SupposeIshootandkillBill,asIintended;ifBillisapoliceofficer,didIintendtokillapoliceofficer?DoestheanswerchangeifIknewBillwasapoliceofficer?OrmustIbemotivatedbythatfact,asIwouldbeifIwereinacop-killingcontest,forexample?Ordinarylanguagehereisalsoindeterminate,evenwithrespecttonoun/verbusagesofintend.Inonesense(oftencalledthederesense)ofintend,ifBillisacopandIintendedtokillhim,Iintendedtokillacop;inanothersense(oftencalledthededictosense),evenbelievingthatBillisacopisnotenoughIhavetorepresentthestateofaffairsIintendtobringaboutasthekillingofacop.26
Anglo-Americancriminallaw(bothcommonlawandModelPenalCode)(1)recognizestheambiguityofthetwousagesastoconsequences;(2)resolvesthevaguenessoftheadverb/adjectiveusageastoconsequencesinfavorofintentionality;and(3)resolves(sortof)thedere/dedictoambiguityregardingcircumstances.Takingeachinorder.
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 7 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
1.Thecriminallawrecognizestheambiguityofthetwousagesbydistinguishingspecificintentfromgeneralintent.Thedominantmeaning(thereareunfortunatelyothers)ofspecificintentisthatofafurtherintention,furtherinthesensethatitisanintentionhavingasitsobjectsomestateofaffairsbeyondtheactiondone.27Thefurther(specific)intentionwithwhichIshotthesnakewastopreventusgettingbitten.Correspondingly,ageneralintentionisjusttodotheactthecriminallawprohibits;intheexample,letthatbe,alertingthesavages.Mostcrimeshavingsomeformofintentionsasmensreaaregeneralintentcrimes,suchasrape,arson,andmurder;specificintentcrimestendtobeinchoatecrimes(wheretheevilthelawultimatelyseekstopreventneednothaveoccurred).Assaultwithintenttokill,breakingandenteringwithintenttosteal,takingthe(p.187) propertyofanotherwithintenttodeprivepermanently,arewell-wornexamplesofspecificintentcrimes.2.Thecriminallawstipulatesthat,onthefactsgiven,IalertedtheIndiansintentionally,ieIhadtherequisitegeneralintention.Inanutshell,predictivebelief(acognitivestate)issufficientforgeneralintention;forspecificintentitisnotenough,becausewhatisneededisamotivationalstate(withregardtoeitherendsormeans).283.Withregardtothecircumstanceelementsofvariouscrimessuchasthelackofthewoman'sconsentinrape/attemptedrapecasesthecriminallawiscomplicated.Theonesimpletruthisthatthelawnowhererequirestruepurposewithregardtosuchcircumstances.Thisiscertainlytrueofgeneralintentcrimessuchasrape:theactorneedonlyknowthatthewomanisconsenting,heneednotbemotivatedbythatfact(wantingonlyforcedsex,forexample).Butthisiseventrueforspecificintentcrimessuchasassaultwithintenttorape:theactorwhoassaultsintendingpenetrationisguiltyifhemerelybelievesthereisnoconsent,nolessthanifheismotivatedbythatfact.29
Thereislessagreementaboutwhatmentalstateisrequiredregardingcircumstances.Thecommonlawgenerallyindulgesthefiction(throughitsunreasonablemistakedoctrines)thatanunreasonablebeliefthatthereisconsentconstitutesageneralintentionthattherebenoconsent;30althoughthisfictionisnotindulgedforspecificintentcrimes,whichrequireknowledgeofcircumstanceelementssuchasthelackofconsent.31TheModelPenalCoderequiresbeliefastosuchcircumstancesforbothcrimesrequiringknowledgeaswellaspurpose,whatthecommonlawwouldcallgeneralandspecificintentcrimes,respectively.32EventheCode,however,wafflesawkwardlyforcertainspecificintentcrimeslikeattemptandcomplicity(arguablyrequiringonlythemensrearequiredfortheunderlyingcrimetobeheldtohavethesespecificintents).33
Criminalcodestypicallyprohibitthousandsofacttypes,fromkillingtotransportingcorrosiveliquidswithoutproperlabels.TheEnglishlanguageandthecriminallawarerichinwordswithwhichtodescribethemensrearequirementsattachedtothesethousandsofprohibitions:wemaybeforbiddentodosomeactionAifwe:intendA;doAintentionally;doAknowingly,orwilfully,orconsciously,or(p.188) beingawareorbelievingthatitisAwearedoing.Inaddition,someverbsofactionalsocontainwithin
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 8 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
themnotonlyactionprohibitionsbutimplicitmensreaprovisionsaswell.Tolie,forexample,isnotonlytotellanuntruth;inaddition,onemustknowthatwhatoneissayingisfalse.Asanotherexample,someverbsofactionareintention-drenched34inthesensethatonecannotdosuchanactexceptwithacertainintention,suchasmotioningapedestrianacrossthestreet(one'sarmmustmovewithanintentiontososignal)35orendeavoringtoobstructjustice(one'sactmustbedonewithanintentiontoobstructjustice),36etc.
Thegeneralpartofthecriminallawissupposedtobringordertothisotherwiseriotousprolixitybyreducingallofthesesortsofmensrearequirementstoeithergeneralorspecificintentrequirements.37Othermensreaterms,however,arenotsupposedtobesoreduced,andtheyformaninformativecontrasttointention/intentional.
1.Deliberateandpremeditatedintentionality.Thisphrase,takenfromthedominantformofhomicidestatuteintheUnitedStates(whereitisaprerequisiteforfirstdegreemurder),hastwodifferentmeaningsincriminallaw,dependingonwhichstateoneisin.Considerthiswell-knowninference:IfdefendantDkilledintendingtokill,thenhiskillingwasdeliberate;ifhiskillingwasdeliberate,thenhedeliberatedaboutit;ifhedeliberatedaboutit,thenhiskillingwaspremeditated.Thereforeallintendedkillingsarealsodeliberateandpremeditatedkillings.38StateslikePennsylvaniaregardthisasatrueconclusion;39stateslikeCalifornia(themajority)donot.40Inthelatterstates,deliberateandpremeditatedrequiresthatthekillingbedeliberatetheyrequiremorethanthatthekillingbedeliberatedaboutinasensenotsynonymouswiththekillingbeingdeliberate.Suchdeliberationrequiresconsciousweighingofreasonsand/orconsiderationofmeansdatablementalprocesstoeitherprecedeorsucceedtheformingofanintentiontokill.2.Maliceaforethoughttheabsenceofpassionateintentionality.Thephrase,maliceaforethought,alsotakenfromthedominantformofhomicidestatuteintheUnitedStates(whereitisusedtodistinguishmurderfrommeremanslaughter),includesaspartofitsmeaningthattheintenttokillnotbeformedbecauseof(p.189) anunderstandablepassionarisingoutofareasonableprovocation(onecommonlawformulation)41orbecauseofextremementaloremotionaldisturbanceforwhichthereisareasonableexplanationorexcuse(thebroaderModelPenalCodeversion).42Hereagainadifferentmentalstatedistinctionispresupposed,distinctfromthedistinctionsbetweenintended/unintendedandintentional/unintentional.Thisdifferentdistinctionisbetweenintentionsformedbecauseofpassionandintentionsformedoutofeitherdispassionateimpulseorcooldeliberation.3.Involuntaryintentions.Bothordinaryspeechandthecriminallawrecognizethepsychologicaltruththatdecisionsmadeunderduresswhetherduetohumanthreatsornaturalnecessityarestilldecisions,ieintentions,andthattheactionsdoneyieldingtosuchthreats,whileinapopularsenseinvoluntary,43arenonethelessintentionalactions.Suchactionsmayormaynotbeexcusedbythedefenseofduress,butirrespectivetheseareintentionalactions.Involuntaryin
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 9 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
thissensedoesnotnegativeintention.4.Intentionsaswilling/volition/voluntaryaction.Thesetermsrequireaveryparticularkindofintention:thedefendantmustintendthebasicact(usuallyabodilymovement)bywhichhebringsaboutthecomplexactthecriminallawforbids.44Wheredefendantkillsanotherbyshootinghim,forexample,thedefendantmustintend(will,haveastheobjectofhisvolition,bevoluntarywithrespectto)thebodilymovementsthatcausethetriggertomove.Notethatadefendantcanhavesuchintent(tomovehisfinger)andnothaveeitherageneraloraspecificintenttokill.Notealsothatadefendant'sactcanbevoluntaryinthistechnical,criminallawsenseandyetinvoluntaryornon-voluntaryinthepopularsenseofbeingunderduress.
Myowninterestinthischapterisnotondeliberate,impassioned,compelled,orvolitionalintentions;theseareadd-onstothemorebasicnotionofanintention.Moreover,myfocuswillbeonintentioninthesensethatcriminallawyerscallspecificintentandthatordinarylanguagephilosopherscallintentionwithwhichorfurtherintention.Itisnotthatdoingsomeactionintentionallylacksinterestforresponsibilitytheorists.Yetintentionalityinthissenseisnotanaturalkindasarethepsychologicalstatesofintentionandbelief;indeed,itisonlyaconstructionoutofintentioninmysense,soIshallfocusonthemorebasicitem.
Therearetwoquestionstoexploreaboutintentionssolimited.Oneisthequestionoftheirnature:towhatsortofmentalstatedoesintentionrefer?Thesecondisaquestionofcontent:howdowefix(andwhatsortofthingisitthatwearefixingwhenwefix)theobjectorcontentofanintention?Touseintentionasthemarkerofmostseriousculpabilitysupposesthatwehavesomeanswertobothofthesequestions.(p.190)
4SUPPOSITIONSABOUTTHENATUREOFINTENTIONINRESPONSIBILITYASSESSMENTSAtthemostgenerallevelusesofintentioninresponsibilityassessmentspresupposearealismaboutintentions.Asonecommonlawcourtputit,thelawsupposesthatthestateofaman'smindisasmuchafactasthestateofhisdigestion.45Wesupposethisinlawandinethicsbecauseanynaturalistviewoflegalandmoralqualitiesiscommittedtotherebeingsomenaturalpropertyonwhichmoralandlegalpropertiessupervene.46Therehavetobeintentionsforresponsibilitytodependonintentionalityinthewaythatitdoes.
Lessgenerally,ourassessmentofresponsibilityalsosupposesthatthefolkpsychologyofintentionisatleastroughlycorrect.Intention,inotherwords,notonlyexistsasadistinctkindofmentalstate,butitisthekindofmentalstatethatfolkpsychologypositsittobe.Oneseesthissuppositionplainlyinthewaythatthemensreadoctrinesofthecriminallawarebuiltentirelyonthebackofthatfolkpsychology.
Thefolkpsychologyinquestionisthatrelatingtopracticalrationality.Onthestandardviewofthispsychologytherearethreesortsofrepresentationalstatesthatcausethebehaviourofrationalagents:therearestatesofdesire,wherewerepresenttheworldaswewantittobe;statesofbelief,wherewerepresenttheworldaswebelieveitis;and
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 10 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
therearestatesofintention,wherewerepresenttheworldasweintendtomakeit.47Forrationalaction,thesestatesneedtoberelatedintheircontentsaccordingtothefollowingschema:
1.Desires(q)(Motivationalpremise)2.Believes(ifp,thenq)48(Cognitivepremise)3.Intends(p)(Conationalpremise)4.Doestheactiondescribedinp.
Thegradingofculpability(betweenmostculpablestatesofpurposeorspecificintent,lessculpablestatesofknowledgeorgeneralintent,stilllessculpablestatesofrecklessnessandnegligence)donebythecriminallawisbuiltentirelyontheback(p.191) ofthisfolkpsychology.Onecanseethisclearlyifonechartsthemensreaconceptsofthecriminallawagainstthefolkpsychologyofdesires,intentions,andbeliefs.Considerfirstthegradingofculpabilityregardingtheresultelementsofcrimes.ThisisdepictedinFigure9.1.
AsFigure9.1shows,thelawusesthethreerepresentationalstatesofdesire,intention,andbeliefasthebaseintermsofwhichitdefinesthestatesthatgradeculpability.Thelawdoesnotdistinguishoffenderswhodesiresomeprohibitedresultforitsownsake,fromthosewhointendthatstateonlyasameanstoachievingsomethingelsedesiredforitsownsake.Thus,specificintentorpurposeisdefinedsoastoincludeeitherstate.Thelawdoesdistinguishpredictivebelieffromdesire/intention;thus,generalintentorknowledgeisdefinedsothatbelief(thatalegallyprohibitedresultwillbecausedbyone'saction)willsuffice,whereasitwillnotforspecificintentorpurpose.Furthermore,thereckless/knowledgeandthereckless/negligencelinesaredrawnintermsofbeliefs.Forthefirstline,belieftoapracticalcertainty(knowledge)isdistinguishedfrombeliefofasubstantialrisk(recklessness);forthesecondline,beliefthatthereisasubstantialrisk(recklessness)isdistinguishedfromabsenceofsuchabeliefwhenitwouldhavebeenreasonabletohaveformedsuchabelief(negligence).
Thelaw'suseofthefolkpsychologyisjustasevidentinitsdefinitionofthestatesthatgradeculpabilitywithrespecttothecircumstanceelementsofcrimes.Thelawitself,however,isabitmorecomplicated,asisshowninFigure9.2.
AsFigure9.2shows,forcircumstanceelementsthelawallowsanyofthethreerepresentationalstatestosufficeforthestateofhighestculpability,specificintentorpurpose.Thatis,oneisguiltyofassaultwithintenttokillapoliceman(aspecificintentcrime)if:(1)onewantedtokillacopasanendinitself;or(2)onewascompetinginacop-killingcontestandoneintendedthatthepersonkilledbeacopsothathiskillingcountedinthecontest;or(3)onewasindifferenttowhetherthevictimkilledwasorwasnotacop,althoughonebelievedwithcertaintythathewasacop.Althoughthelawallowsanyofthesestatestosufficeformostseriousculpability,evenhereitdefinesthatmostseriousculpabilityintermsofthesethreestates.Evenherethelaw'smensrearequirementsarethusbuiltontheconceptsofthefolkpsychology.
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 11 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Thisisalsotruewithregardtothedistinctionsinbeliefthelawdrawswithrespecttocircumstanceelements.Noticethecommonlawallowsmistakenbelieforabsenceofbelief(whenitwouldhavebeenreasonabletohavehadacertainbelief)tosufficeforgeneralintent49andmalice,aswellasfornegligence.Thecommonlawthushasasimplegradingschemeregardingcircumstances:belieftoapracticalcertaintyconstitutesspecificintent,andnothavingsuchabeliefwhenoneshouldhavesufficesforallothergradesofculpability.Thisdistinction,whilesimple,isstillwhollyintermsofthefolkpsychologicalconceptofbelief.(p.192)
Figure9.1 Mensreaconceptsreconsequences.
(p.193)
Figure9.2 Mensreaconceptsrecircumstances.
(p.194)
TheModelPenalCode'suseofbelieftogradeculpabilitywithregardtocircumstanceelementsismorecomplicatedthanthecommonlaw.Withitsnotionofwilfulblindness,theCodeintroducesabelieftoahighprobabilitybetweenbelieftoapracticalcertainty(knowledge)andbeliefofasubstantialrisk(reckless),andthenallowstheintermediatebelieftosufficeforknowledge.50TheCodealsodistinguishesunreasonableabsenceofbelief(negligence)fromthehavingofabeliefthatthereisasubstantialriskthatsome
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 12 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
circumstanceispresent(recklessness).Buttheonlypointhereisthatthesedistinctionsarewhollydrawnintermsofthefolkpsychologicalnotionofbelief.
Thereareanumberofothersuppositions(aboutintentions)thatresponsibilityassessmentsarecommonlythoughttomake,inadditiontosupposingthebasicbelief/desire/intention(BDI)psychologyofrationalactionjustsketched.Ishallconsiderthreeofthem.Thefirstisthatintentionsarecausallyefficacious.Morespecifically,theideaisthatintentions(sometimes,atleast)causetheactsthataretheirobject.WhenIgodowntownbecauseIintendedtogodowntown,thebecauseismeantcausally.
Itisoftenurgedthatsomethingmorethancausationisrequiredhere.Thisisthoughttobeshownbydeviantcausalchainskindsofcase.51SupposeIintendtorunyoudownwithmycar;yetthisintentioncausessuchexcitementinme,suchconflict,etc,thatItremble,myfootslipsoffthebrake,hitstheaccelerator,andmycardoesindeedrunyoudown.Youarerundownbecauseofmyintention,butmyrunningyoudownwasstillanaccident.Sowemustamendthesuppositionhere:theintentionmustcausetheactintherightway,52orbetter,theactionmustbedoneinexecutionoftheintention.Inanycase,howeverthisisput,atleasttheintentionmustcausetheactionforonetoberegardedasseriouslyculpablebecauseoneintendedthewrongdone.
Incriminallawthissuppositionissometimesputasatemporalsupposition,asimultaneityrequirement.53Onthisconstrualtherequirementisthattheactandtheintentbesimultaneouswithoneanother.Yetthistemporalcriterionisonlydoingproxywork;whatisreallyrequiredisthekindofcausalconnectionwegetwhenanactisdoneinexecutionofanintention.Giventhetemporalproximityofintentionswiththeactsthatexecutethem,suchactsandintentionswillbeclosetosimultaneous.Yettheconverseisnottrue:Icanintendtorunyoudown,andstarttheactionofrunningyoudownatthesametime,yetnotdothatactinexecutionofthatintention.Forexample,Ialsointendtoescapethelargetruckbearingdownbehindme,andaccelerateforthatreason.(p.195)
Howeverput,ataminimumintentionsneedtocausetheactionsthataretheirobjectsinorderforintentiontobeamarkerofseriousculpability.Thereisalivelydebateincontemporaryneuroscienceaboutwhethersuchcausalconnectioncanexist,54thosedenyingthisdefendingthealternativeconclusionthatintentionsaremerelyepiphenomenalwiththebehaviourtheyputativelycause.Butourresponsibilityassessmentsplainlysupposeotherwise.
Thesecondadditionalsuppositionthatresponsibilityassessmentsaresaidtomakehastodowiththecausesofintentionsratherthatwhatintentionscancause.Thesuppositionisthatintentionsarefreeinthesenseofuncaused.Theideaisthatintentionsareaspeciesofchoice,decision,andwilling,andthatalloftheseprocessesmustbefree,elsetheywouldnotbewhattheyare.Thisisofcoursenothinglessthanthesuppositionoffreewill.
Thiswouldbeanextraordinarysuppositionforouruseofintentioninourblamingpracticestomake.Thinkofit:somethingthatcancausethingslikeactionstooccur,butthatisitselfuncaused.TheBigBangissupposedtobelikethat,onsomecosmologies;
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 13 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Godissupposedtobelikethat,onsometheologies.Butitisludicroustothinkthateachhumanchoiceislikethat.Fortunatelynothingintheuseofintentiontomarkseriousculpabilityinlawormoralitydemandsthisextraordinarypostulate.55
Thethirdadditionalsuppositionhastodowithconsciousness.Manythinkthatonecanhaveanintentiononlyifoneisconsciousofwhatthecontentofthatintentionis.56(Alternatively,onemightthinkthatalthoughonecanhaveunconsciousintentions,theonlyintentionsthataffectone'sculpabilityareconsciousintentions.57)This(p.196) isamuchmorenuancedsuppositionaboutintentionsandresponsibilitythanweretheprevioustwo;forwiththemitwasablackandwhiteyesornoastowhethersuchasuppositionismade.Heretherearenuancedshadesofgrey.
Ithelpstobeclearwhatonemeansbyconsciousness.Ifonemeansthephenomenological,experientialnotionthestreamofconsciousnessofJoyceanfictionthenprettyplainlytheuseofintentiontomarkculpabilitydoesnotrequireit.Manyoftheactionsthatwedo,intendingtodothem,andbeingrightlyblamedfordoingthem,aredonewhileweliterallyhaveourmindsonsomethingelse.Theexerciseofwell-honedskills,allformsofhabitualbehaviour,andthelike,areintendedbutdonotrequireconsciousattentiontoperformthemcompetently.58Thisiswhytheoverlayofpremeditatedanddeliberaterequiredforfirstdegreemurder(asabovediscussed)isatrueadditiontotherequirementofintentionalityformurderitself;forintentionitselfdoesnotrequirethatsuchdatableprocessesinconsciousnessoccur.
However,itispreferabletounderstandconsciousheretorefertoanability,adisposition.Thisistheabilitytoturnone'sattentiontotheintendedactioniftheneedarises,andtheabilitytostatewhatwasintendedifthatneedarises.59Suchabilitiesdonotdependontherebeingsilentsoliloquiesgoingonearlierintheheadsofthosewhohaveintentions.Itismuchmoreplausibletothinkeitherthatintentionswithoutconsciousnessinthissenseareimpossible,oratleastthatthereisnoresponsibilityforintentionsthatdonotmeetthisconsciousnesscondition.
5SUPPOSITIONSABOUTTHECONTENTOFINTENTIONINRESPONSIBILITYASSESSMENTSLikeallrepresentationalmentalstates,intentionstakeobjects.Onedoesn'tjustintend,fullstop,anymorethanonejustdesiresorbelieves,fullstop.Necessarily,weintendthatsomethingbethecase.ThesomethingiswhatIhavebeencallingthecontentof(p.197)anintention.Becauseintentionshavecontent,itisneverenoughtoknowthatsomeonehadanintention(asopposedtosomeotherkindofmentalstate);wealsoneedtoknowwhatsheintended.Ithusmovefromthenatureofintentiontoquestionsofcontent.
Inusingintentiontomarkseriousprimafacieculpabilitywehavetoaskandanswertwoquestionsrelatedtothecontentofintentions.Thefirstisaquestionofcomparingwhatthedefendantintendedonaparticularoccasion,theintention-token,withthetypeofintentionlegalormoralnormsrequireforconvictionorblame.Thequestioniswhetherthedefendant'sintention-tokenisaninstanceofthetypeofintentionlegallyormorallyrequired.Thesecondisaquestionofcomparingwhatthedefendantintendedona
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 14 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
particularoccasionwiththeactthedefendantactuallydidonthatoccasion.Thequestioniswhetherthedefendant'sactionisaninstanceofthetypeofactionthatheintendedtodoornot.60
Thesearebothquestionsregardingtherepresentationalcontentofintentions.Theybothrequirethatwefixwhatthedefendantintendedonsomeoccasionasamatterofpsychologicalfact,andthencomparethatcontentwith:eitherthetypeofcontentthelawormoralityrequires,forthefirstquestion;ortheactiondonebythedefendantinexecutionofthatintention,forthesecondquestion.
Theneedtoaskthefirstofthesequestionsisprobablyobvious.Afterall,toapplylegalormoralnormstoparticularfactsalwaysrequiresustoaskquestionsaboutparticularfactsinstantiatinggeneralnorms.Theneedforaskingthesecondquestionmaybelessobvious,however.Yetaskingsuchaquestionisalsoindispensableinusingintentiontomarkmostseriousprimafacieculpability.SupposedefendantDshootsandhitshisvictimV.IfwewishtoknowwhetherthehittingofVwasintended,weneedtoknowtheobjectofD'sintentioninshootingonthisoccasion:ifitwastohitV,ortowoundV,ortokillV,thenthebatteryonVwasintended;ifitwastoscareV,ortohittheappleonV'shead,ortohitatarget,thenthehittingofVwasunintended.Inthelattercase,thehittingofVmayhavebeenforeseen,orconsciouslyrisked,inwhichcaseDissomewhatculpableforthewrongofshootingV.ButtobemostseriouslyculpablefortheintendedhittingofV,thecontentoftheintentionofD's(thatcausedhimtoshoot)musthavebeenoneoftheformerrepresentations.Usingintentionstogradeculpabilitythusrequiresthatweaskbothofthesematchingquestionsaboutwhatthedefendantintended.
Bothofthesequestionsmayseemtobenotmuchdifferentthantheomnipresentclassificationquestionslawyersandmoralistsalwaysfaceinapplyinggeneralnormstoparticularfacts.Todecidewhetheradefendantviolatedsomeruleagainstdriving(p.198) avehiclethroughthecitypark,forexample,wehavetodecidewhetherwhatthedefendantdidamountedtodriving,whetherwhathedroveconstitutedavehicle,andwhetherthelandonwhichhedrovewascityparkland.Whilethereareproblemshere,theyarethefamiliarproblemsoffixingtheextensionofthepredicatesusedintherelevantrules:problemsofvagueness,ambiguity,corecases,thepenumbra,letterversusspirit,andthelike.61
Ourtwomatchquestionsaboutintentionsraisedifferent,andharder,problemsofclassification.Forwiththeseintention-relatedquestionswearebereftoftheusualresources(ofidentityandinstantiation)onwhichwerelyfornormalclassificatoryquestions.WecanseethisviatwooldexamplesofEdwinKeedy's.62Keedywasapplyingthecommonlawruleforlegallyimpossibleattempts:ifthedefendantdidallheintendedtodoandyetwhatthedefendantdidwouldstillnothavebeencriminal,thenhisattemptwaslegallyimpossibleandnotpunishable.Keedygavetwoexamplesinapplicationofthiscommonlawrule:
1.Defendantintendedtotaketheumbrellainhishand;hebelievedthatthatumbrellawasthepropertyofanother;infactthatumbrellawashisown.
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 15 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
Therefore,Keedyconcluded,sincetheumbrellainhishandwashisownumbrella,thedefendantdidnotintendtotakethepropertyofanother(andisnotguiltyofattemptedtheft).2.Defendantintendedtoshootatwhathethoughtwasaperson;infactthethingshotatwasastump;therefore,defendantdidnotintendtoshootataperson,andisnotguiltyofattemptedmurder.
Theseareprettyobviouslydaffyinferences.Butnoticetheywouldnotbesosillyifwewerenotclassifyingintentions,butwereclassifyingactions;forthenwecouldusethetrueidentities(theumbrellainhishandisthetaker'sownumbrella,thistargetisastump)tomakeanalogousinferences(ifthedefendanttooktheumbrellainhishand,thenhetookhisownumbrella;ifthedefendantshotthatperson-lookingobject,thenheshotastump.)
Whenclassifyingintentionsbytheirrepresentationalcontent,wecannotrelyontrueidentities,extensionalequivalences,ornormalinstantiations.Rather,wehavetorelyonhowthedefendantrepresentedwhathewastryingtoachieveinhismind.Putsimply,herethedescriptionsmatter,notjusttheunderlyingidentitiesoftherealworldthingsthosedescriptionsseeminglydescribe.
Thislong-noticedfactaboutintentions(andotherrepresentationalmentalstates)isoftencalledtheirIntentionality.63NoticehowhardtheIntentionalityofintentions(p.199)makesourclassificatoryquestions.Takethefirstofthem.Supposethedefendantdrivesacitybusthroughthepark,andsupposeitisclearthatbusesarevehiclesforpurposesofthisordinance(aswellasinnormalEnglish);thendefendantdroveavehiclethroughthecitypark.Butdidheintendtodriveavehiclethroughthepark?Supposeweknowheintendedtodriveabusthroughtheparkthefactthatbusesarevehiclesinrealitydoesnotmeanthattheyaresuchinhisownmind,sowecannoteasilyinferheintendedtodriveavehicle.Afterall,hemightregardbuses(bothinnormalEnglishandinthelaw)asnon-vehicles,inwhicheventhewouldsaythatwhatheintendedwasnottodriveavehicleinthepark(and,givenconsistencyofintentions),thereforeitisnotthecasethatheintendedtodriveavehiclethroughthepark.64
OrconsiderIntentionality'seffectonthesecondquestion.Supposeweknowthatthedefendantdidrepresentwhatheintendedas,killingahumanbeing(oneintentionsufficientforconvictionofmurderistointendtokillahumanbeing).Wealsoknowthatwhathedidwasshootandkillamemberofanotherrace,aracethatdefendantregardsasnon-humanorsub-human.Hewas,wemaysuppose,shootingatamemberofhisownracebutmissed,hittinginsteadthedifferent-racevictim.Ifwefixtheextensionofhisrepresentationofhumanbeingaswefixtheextensionofthewords,humanbeing,thisisaneasycase.Yetisthissoclearfordefendant'srepresentation?Byhisownlights,hefailedtoachievewhathesetouttoachieve,whichwastokillaninstanceofwhatheregardedasahumanbeing.
Inmoralitybutevenmoreinthelawwehavesomedetailedgeneralizationstohelpwiththeseotherwiseintractableclassificationquestionsaboutintentions.Letmeconsidereach
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 16 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
questionseparately,beginningwiththefirst.Thefirstquestion,aswehaveseen,requiresacomparisonoftwothings:thetypeofintentionrequiredbylawormorality;andtheintention-tokenhadbysomedefendantonsomeoccasion.
Asastart,considerthisoldinjunctionofPhillippaFoot'sinethics:askwhetheranactionisintentionalunderthatdescriptionofitscontentthatmakesitbad.65Inmyownlanguage:weareprimafacieculpablewhenweactunderarepresentationoftheworldthatwouldmakeouractionwrongfuliftherepresentationweretrue.66Thisrequiresthatwefirstdiscoverthetypesofactionsthatarewrongful(becauseviolativeofthenormsofnegativeobligation);andthenaskifthedefendanthadsuchtypeofactionasthecontentofhisintention.Culpableintentionsareinthiswayconceptuallyparasiticonthedeonticnormsofwrongdoing.
Thecriminallaw,hereaselsewhere,sharpensthismoralpoint.GiventhestatutorynatureofcontemporaryAnglo-Americancriminallaw,findingoutwhatis(p.200) wrongiseasy:webutopenupBentham'sgreatbookoflaws67toseewhatactionsandwhatfurtherintentionsareprohibitedbystatute.Callthisourfirstmaximinconstruingwhattypeofintentionisrequiredforconviction:theintentionmusthaveasitsobjecttheactusreusofsomestatutoryoffence,or,inthecaseofspecificintentcrimes,someotherlegallyprohibitedstateofaffairs.
Oursecondmaximmakesthefirstmoreprecise.Itisthattheactusreuswemustlooktoinconstruingthetypeofintentionrequiredforconvictionmustbetheactusreusofthecrimecharged.Onedoesn'tgettomixandmatch,anymoreherethanwithapairofsocks.Ifthedefendantischargedwitharsonsay,burningdownashipitwillnotdotofindthatheintendedtheactusreusofsomeotheroffence,suchastheft.68Primafacie,theobjectoftheprohibitedintentionmustmatchtheactusreusofthetypeofoffencecharged,notanyotheroffence.
Thethirdmaximisaqualificationofthesecond.Manystatutoryactusreusprohibitionshaveelementswithinthemthatareirrelevanttothemoralwrongthatunderliesthestatutoryactusreus.69Asanexample,theCaliforniaPrivacyActprohibitsonefromintentionallyrecordingaconfidentialcommunicationwithouttheconsentofallparticipantsbymeansofanyelectronicamplifyingorrecordingdevice,excludingaradio.70Whatifonemistakenlybelievesheisrecordingviaaradioisthatrelevant?Doesthestatutorymensrearequirethatoneintentionallyrecordedwithanon-radiodevice?Thereisnothingmorallyworseaboutrecordingwithoutaradiothanwithone;thenotaradiorequirementisinthestatuteforjurisdictionalreasons,namely,toavoidpre-emptionofastatestatutebyfederalcommunicationslaw.Soweshouldeliminateanyrepresentationofradio-hoodfromtheobjectoftheintentionrequiredtobeconvictedunderthisstatute.Thiswillbetoapplythethirdmaxim.
Thefourthmaximhastodowiththetrickyproblemofconditionalintentions.Aconditionalintentionisnotpresentwhenitisonlytrueofsomedefendantthat,ifmoneywerefoundonthepavement,hewouldformtheintentiontotakeit.71Theretheconditionisexternaltohisintention,andisaconditionprecedenttohishavinganyintentiontosteal.Atrue
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 17 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
conditionalintentioniswheretheconditioniswithintheobjectofsomepresentintentionofthedefendant.Forexample:thedefendantnowintendsthat,ifthemoneyisstillonthepavementwherehesawitanhourago,hewilltakeit.
Theissuewithconditionalintentionsiswhethertheycarrywiththemthesamedegreeofculpabilityasdounconditionalintentionstodothesamething.Thelaw(p.201) purportstogivemorehelpherethanitactuallycandeliver.Thecommonlawmaximwasthatifthecondition(whencommunicatedtothevictimasademand,asiscommon)wasonethedefendantwasnotentitledtomake,thenaconditionalintentionistobetreatedasaninstanceofthetypeofintentionrequiredforconviction.72TheModelPenalCodeversionofthismaximisevenbroader,equatingconditionalwithunconditionalintentionsacrosstheboard.73AsJusticeScaliaobserved,thiscannotberight:thedoctrineofconditionalintentcannotreasonablybeappliedacross-the-boardtothecriminalcode.74Themostweshouldconcludeisthatpresumptively,thatanintentionisconditionalinitscontentmakesnoculpabilitydifference,recognizingthatthiswillnotalwaysbetrue.
Thefifthmaximisactuallyacollectionofadhocsubstitutionrules.Iviewtheseasadhocexceptionstothesecondmaximabove.Herearesomeexamples.
a.Thelegalwrongdoctrine:thedefendantneednotintendtheactusreusofthecrimehedidsolongashedidintendtheactusreusofsomeothergradeofthatcrime(asindoingafirstdegree,night-timeburglary,thinkingitwasasecondorthirddegree,day-timeburglary).75b.Thefelony/murderrule:thedefendantneedn'tintendtokilltobeconvictedofmurder,eventhoughkillingistheactusreusofmurder,solongasthedefendantintendedtodosomeotherfelonyandduringthatfelonythevictimdied.76c.Thegrievousbodilyharmmurderdoctrine:thedefendantneedn'tintendtokillformurder,eventhoughkillingistheactusreusofmurder,solongasheintendedthevictimgrievousbodilyharm,andthevictimdiedasaresultofthatharm.77d.Thebattery-assaultinterchange:thedefendantneedn'tintendtohit(causecontactwith)thevictim,eventhoughhittingistheactusreusofbattery,solongasthedefendantdidintendtofrighten(causeapprehensionofcontactby)thevictim;conversely,thedefendantneedn'tintendtoscarethevictim,eventhoughcausingapprehensionistheactusreusforassault,solongasdefendantdidintendtohitthevictim.78(p.202)e.Themayhemsubstitutionrule:thedefendantneedn'tintendtodisfigurethevictimeventhoughdisfigurementistheactusreusofmayhem,solongasthedefendantdidintendtohitthevictimandthathitdidcausedisfigurement.79
Theseandotherrulessubstituteonetypeofintentionforthatwhichwouldnormallyberequiredbythesecondmaximabove(theonerequiringthattheobjectoftheintentionrequiredforconvictionbetheactusreusofthecrimechargedandnottheactusreusofsomeothercrime),apparentlyontherationalethattointendthesubstitutedthingiscloseenoughinculpabilitytobetreatedasifitweretointendtheactualwrongdoingoftheoffence.80
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 18 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
ThesixthmaximisintendedtodealdirectlywiththeproblemsraisedbytheIntentionalityofintentions.Themaximisusuallyputasashortandsnappyaphorism,ignoranceofthelawisnoexcuse.81Whatisreallybeingsaid,however(inthetermsrelevanthere),isthatthedefendantneednotrepresentwhatheintendstodoorachieveintheliterallanguageofthelawdescribingtheactusreusoftheoffence.82Toreverttotheearlierexampleofthenovehiclesintheparkordinance,thedefendantneednotrepresentwhatheintendstodriveasavehicle;hemaybeignorantthatbusesarevehicles,orevenmistakeninabeliefthatbusesarenotvehicles,andstillhavetheintentionrequiredforconviction.83
Thedoctrineisbasedonthereasonableenoughassumptionthatfewoffendersformulatetheobjectsoftheirintentionsinthelegalterminologyusedbystatutes.Evenlawyersdon'tintend,forexample,tocauseasportationofpropertyofanother(theoldcommonlawactusreusoftheft)whentheysteal.Wehavetoallowmanyotherrepresentationstoqualifyasprohibitedintentions,inadditiontotheoccasionalinhaecverbarepresentationthatwemayencounter.Theunresolvedproblem,however,ishowwearetoclassifyparticularrepresentationsunderthismoresensiblyrelaxedrequirement.BecauseoftheIntentionalityofintentions,wecannotconfidentlyrelyontheordinaryextensionsofthetermsusedinthecontentoftheprohibitedintentions.Butwithoutthis,whatshouldbeourguide?
Lawyerscommonlythinktheycananswerthiswithaseventhmaxim:representationsofadefendantthatarenotinhaecverbaoftherelevantstatutewillbesufficientforconvictionifbasedonsomeerroneouslegalbeliefbythedefendant,notifbasedonsomeerroneousfactualbeliefbythedefendant.Theearlierhypothesizeddefendantwhoerroneouslybelievesbusesarenotvehicleswouldgetoffifhebelievedbusestolackmotors(whenmotorsareanecessaryconditionoflegal(p.203) vehicle-hood),afactualerror;notifhebelieved(erroneously)thatthelawexemptedmodesofpublictransportfromitsprohibitiononvehicles.Yethowdoessuchadistinctionhandletheracistkillerwhointendstokillamemberofanotherrace,believingthatmembersofsuchracelacksomeessentialcriterionoflegalpersonhood(suchasmembershipinthespecies,homosapiens)?Seeminglysucharacistkillercannotbeconvictedofintendingtokillahumanbeing,yetIdoubtanycourthasorwouldsohold.Morebroadly,themaxim'sdistinctioninvitesalloftheproblemsofdistinguishinganalyticfromsyntheticjudgmentssomuchthefocusofpost-WorldWarIIphilosophy.84
Despitealloftheseproblems,inbothlawandmoralitywedoseemtomuddlealonginformulatingthetypeofintentionthatcanmarkseriousculpability.Yetnoticethatonlygivesushalfofwhatweneedtoanswerthefirstmatchquestiondistinguishedearlier.Wealsoneedtoknowasamatterofpsychologicalfactwhatadefendantintendedonagivenoccasion.Weneed,moreover,aratherpreciseformulationofthecontentoftheintentionwithwhichhedidsomeprohibitedaction.Weneedthisinordertomatchituptothepreciselydetailedtypeofintentionrequiredbyoursevenearliermaxims.Bothlawandmoralityplainlysupposethatpsychologycandeliverupsometruthsherethatmakethecomparisoninquestionpossible.
Whetherpsychologyisuptothisisofcourseahotlycontestedmatter.85Bothlawand
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 19 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
moralitysupposethattheoptimisticsideofthisdebateisright,andthinkthescepticalsideiswrong.Theysupposethatthereisalanguageofthoughtinthebrain,86anincorrigibleandtransparentaccuracyintheverbalbehaviorofself-reporting,87aninfalliblestreamofconsciousness,acomplexarrayofcounterfactualsabouthypotheticalbehaviour,orsomeotherbasisforformulatingwithprecisionwhatapersonintendsonagivenoccasion.Whetherthisisawell-foundedsuppositionoflawandmoralityremainstobeseen.
Thesecondmatchquestionaskedaboutthecontentofintentionswas,howwelldoestheactionthedefendantdidinexecutionofsomeintentionmatchthetypeofactionthatwastheobjectofthatintention?Herealsolawyersandmoralistsreceivesomehelpfromthecriminallaw.Thebestknownofthesecriminallawaidsisthetransferredintentrule.88Whilesometimesconstruedtobearulehelpingwiththefirstmatchquestion,89thisisinactualityaruleaimedathelpingwiththesecond.(p.204) Whattherulesaysisthatdifferencesintheidentityofthevictimdon'tcountwhenassessingwhetherwhatthedefendantdidmatchesthetypeofactheintendedtodocloselyenoughtobegradedanintendedwrongdoer.
Suppose(arealifunreportedcase,asitturnsout)thatsomeskierataskiresortrestaurantmakesanoff-colourcommenttothewaitress.Sheissoincensedthatshehurlsaheavyglassashtrayattheoffendingskier'shead.Withquickreflexes,however,heducksintimeandtheashtrayhitsanotherskiersittingbehindthefirst.Thetransferredintentrulessaythatthewaitressisguiltyoftheintentionaltort(andcrime)ofbattery.True,shedidnotinfactdowhatsheintendedtodo:sheintendedtohittheoffendingskier,andsheinfacthitanotherskier.Butthetransferredintentruleholdsthistobegoodenoughforgovernmentwork,ieadequateforconviction.Sheotherwisedidwhatsheintendedtodo,andthedifferenceintheidentityofthevictimisputasideasimmaterial.
Sucharuleatmostcreatesasafeharbourwhereweknowcertaindifferencesdon'tmatter.Leftunaidedbysuchrulesareallotherdifferences.Forexample,thedefendantintendstohitvictimwithastick,butdoesnotintendtoinjurethevictimwithsuchalightblow(thevictimis,unbeknownsttodefendant,peculiarlysusceptibletoinjury),90orthedefendantintendstoputoutthevictim'slefteyewithablowfromastick,butinsteadputsoutthevictim'srighteye;91orthedefendantintendstoscareavictimintothinkingthatthedefendantwantstokillherbydoinganactwithsomeriskofkillingher,butthatactactuallydoeskilltheintendedtargetofscaring.92Incasessuchasthese,whethertheactdoneinexecutionofsomeintentioncomescloseenoughtothetypeofactintendedisleftopenbythetransferredintentrule.
Indeed,thisruledoesnotevencreatethesafeharbouritpurportstocreate.Supposeadefendantintendstohithisgirlfriend,whohappenstobeholdingtheirbaby;sheturnstoavoidtheblow,whichlandsonthebabyinstead.93Normallythetransferredintentrulewouldsaythatthetypeofactthedefendantintendeddifferedonlyintheidentityofthevictimfromtheactdone,andthisisgoodenoughtobeadjudgedculpableforintendedhittingofthechild.Yetthismaywellnotbetruewherebatteryonanadultisregardedlightly(amisdemeanour),whereasbatteryonachildisregardedmuchmoreseriously(a
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 20 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
felony).Ifthedifferenceinthemoralwrongnessofthesetwoacttypesisasgreatassuchstatutorygradingschemesassume,thenoneshouldbereluctanttotransfertheintentinthemannercontemplatedbythetransferredintentdoctrine.94Thedefendantonlynegligentlyorperhapsrecklesslyhitthechild,evenifhealsoattemptedtohitthegirlfriend.(p.205)
Noticethatthissecondmatchquestionagainsupposesthatpsychologycandeliverupratherpreciseformulationsofwhatitisthatsomedefendantintendedonaparticularoccasion.Evenwithsuchpreciselyformulatedobjectsofintentionswehavetheclassificatorydifficultiesadvertedto,butwithoutsuchformulationsthecomparisonishopelesstobeginwith.
6CONCLUSIONThelawoftortsandofcrimes,togetherwiththemoralityofblamingbehindboth,thusmakesalotofassumptionsaboutwhatistrueinpsychology.TheyassumethatpersonsactbecauseofrepresentationalstatesthatreallyexistandthatexhibitIntentionality,thatthosestatesareofthreedistinctkinds,thatthosekindsarerelatedtooneanotherinthedistinctivepatternofpracticalrationalitychartedearlier,thatintentionsareapartofthatschema,thatthereisadifferenceinkindbetweenintentions(orintentionscumdesires)andbeliefs,thatintentionscanbecausallyefficacious,thatsomeformofprivilegedaccessexistswithrespecttoanintentionbyitsholder,thatthereisafactofthematteraboutwhatsomeoneintendsonaparticularoccasion,andthatthiscanbeformulatedwithsufficientprecisiontoallowthetwocomparisonsresponsibilityassessmentsrequireinordertogradeculpabilitybyintentions.Atallorder,tobesure,butalotwecareaboutbesidesusingintentionstomarkmostseriousculpabilitygoesbytheboardifpsychology/neurosciencecannotdeliveronsuchanorder.
Notes:(1)OliverWendellHolmes,Jr,TheCommonLaw(Boston:Little,Brown,1881),7.
(2)MorissettevUnitedStates,342US246(1952).
(3)IexplorethedoctrineofdoubleeffectinMSMoore,PatrollingtheBordersofConsequentialistJustifications:TheScopeofAgent-RelativeRestrictions(2008)27LawandPhilosophy3596,reprintedasch3ofMSMoore,CausationandResponsibility(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009);seealsoLAlexanderandMSMoore,DeontologicalEthics(2007)StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,http://plato.stanford.edu.
(4)IexplorethisthesisatlengthinMSMoore,ActandCrime:ThePhilosophyofActionanditsImplicationsforCriminalLaw(Oxford:Clarendon,1993),ch6.
(5)Onthegeneralideaofanormativepower,seeJRaz,PracticalReason(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1976).
(6)SeeCFried,ContractasPromise(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1982).
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 21 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
(7)EgEAllanFarnsworth,Contracts(3rdedn;NewYork:Aspen,1999),120.Thismatteriscomplicatedbytheobjectivetheoryofcontractsandbydoctrinesofpromissoryestoppel,whereanunreasonablycreatedappearanceofapromisemaycreateapromise-likeobligation.
(8)Hurdsexamples,inherTheMoralMagicofConsent,(1996)LegalTheory2,12146.
(9)Ibid.
(10)Withthewrittenpermissionoftheauthor,TomBatiuk.
(11)ThesesensesarefruitfullydistinguishedinHLAHart,Postscript:ResponsibilityandRetribution,inhisPunishmentandResponsibility(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1968),21112.
(12)Ibid.
(13)WHohfield,FundamentalLegalConceptions(NewHaven,Conn:YaleUniversityPress,1919).
(14)ExploredinmuchgreaterdetailbymeinMSMoore,LawandPsychiatry:RethinkingtheRelationship(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984),ch2;MSMoore,PlacingBlame:AGeneralTheoryoftheCriminalLaw(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1997),3545,1913.
(15)SpecialandgeneralmensreaaredistinguishedinSKadish,TheDeclineofInnocence(1968)26CambridgeLawJournal273.
(16)ThissecondrequirementofculpabilityinthespecialsenseiscodifiedintheAmericanLawInstitutesModelPenalCode,2.03(2)and2.03(3)(Philadelphia:ALI,1962).Asappliedtonegligence,therequirementisveryproblematic.SeeHHurdandMSMoore,NegligenceintheAir(2002)3TheoreticalInquiriesinLaw333411,reprintedinMoore,CausationandResponsibility,chs79.
(17)Thedistinctionofculpabilityfromwrongdoingisawatershedissueinresponsibilitytheory,boundupwiththedistinctionbetweenjustificationandexcuse.SeegenerallyMoore,PlacingBlame:AGeneralTheoryoftheCriminalLaw,19193.
(18)Onthecapacity/opportunitytheoryofexcuse,seeibidch13.
(19)Asometimesdisputedprint.Foritsdefence,seeibid40810.
(20)AsIargueinCausationandResponsibility,chs3and18.
(21)AsJLAustinprescientlysaid,ordinarylanguagewillnotbethelastwordinmetaphysicsbutsometimesitwillbethefirstword.JLAustin,APleaforExcuses(1956)57ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety130.AsAustinalsosaw,thelawisoftena
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 22 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
fertilegroundfromwhichtominetheinsightsofcommonsense.Ibid.
(22)Asin,eg,GEMAnscombe,Intention(2ndedn;Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1963);andHLAHart,IntentionandPunishment,inhisPunishmentandResponsibility.
(23)FromHMorris(ed),FreedomandResponsibility(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1961),160.
(24)SeeHart,IntentionandPunishment,122;AMeleandPMoser,IntentionalAction(1994)28Nous3968,at45.
(25)Theconsequence/circumstancedistinctionisexploredinMoore,ActandCrime,197213.
(26)Thelocusclassicusofthedere/dedictodistinction(althoughnotputintheseterms,andnotappliedtointentionsspecifically)isWVOQuine,WordandObject(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1960).
(27)PeoplevHood,1Cal3d444,462P2d370(1969).
(28)JDressler,UnderstandingCriminalLaw(2ndedn;NewYork:MathewBender,1995),10507.IamgiventounderstandthatEnglishlawislessuniformonthispoint.
(29)TheModelPenalCodeaccomplishesthisresultbydefiningitstermforspecificintent,purpose,asmereknowledgewithrespecttocircumstances(whereasforconsequences,purposeisdefinedmotivationallyasconsciousobject).ModelPenalCode,2.02(2)(a).
(30)Dressler,UnderstandingCriminalLaw,1389.TheHouseoftheLordssoughttochangetheEnglishcommonlawonthispoint,inRvMorgan[1976]AC182.
(31)Ibid137.
(32)ModelPenalCode,2.04(1).
(33)ModelPenalCode,2.06,5.01(1).
(34)Moore,ActandCrime,1989.
(35)SmithvBocklitz,344SW2d97(Mo1961).
(36)18USCode,1503.
(37)Otherpopularterms,suchasheedlessly,maliciously,carelessly,etc,aretoberegimentedtothelegalcategoriesofrecklessnessornegligence.
(38)BCardozo,LawandLiterature:AndOtherEssaysandAddresses(NewYork:Harcourt,Brace,andWorld,1931),97101.Cardozosactualchainofinferencewas:Therecanbenointentwithoutchoice,yetthechoicewithoutmoreisenoughtojustify
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 23 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
theinferencethattheintentwasdeliberateandpremeditatedIfintentisdeliberateandpremeditatedwheneverthereischoice,thenintruthitisalwaysdeliberateandpremeditated,sincechoiceisinvolvedinthehypothesisoftheintent.
(39)CommonwealthvCarroll,194A2d911,917(Pa1963).
(40)PeoplevAnderson,447P2d942(Cal1968).
(41)Dressler,UnderstandingCriminalLaw,4908.
(42)ModelPenalCode,210(1)(b).
(43)Oratleastnotvoluntary.SeeGRyle,TheConceptofMind(London:Hutchinson,1949),6974.
(44)Moore,ActandCrime,ch6.
(45)EdingtonvFitzmaurice,LR29ChDiv459,483(1882).
(46)DefendedinMSMoore,ObjectivityinLawandEthics(Aldershot,UK:AshgatePress,2004),ch6.
(47)IhaveadoptedMichaelBratmansversionofpracticalrationalityinseparatingintentionfromdesire.SeeMBratman,Intention,PlansandPracticalReason(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1987).Theolderviewistolumpintentionsinwithdesiresasageneralproattitude.SeeegDDavidson,Intention,inhisEssaysonActionsandEvents(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1980).
(48)Thesufficiencyofpforqistoostrong.Intention/beliefconsistency(astrandofpracticalrationality)onlyrequiresthatitnotbethecaseonebelievesitimpossiblethattheactiondescribedbypwillbringaboutthestateofaffairsdesired(q).
(49)Onthis,seethequalificationforlaterEnglishcommonlawinn30above.
(50)ModelPenalCode,2.02(5)defineswilfulblindnessasbelieftoahighprobabilitythatsomefactexists,solongasonedoesnotbelievethatitdoesnotexist.
(51)SeeegAGoldman,ATheoryofHumanAction(EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall,1970),5563.
(52)Ibid61.
(53)AsinDressler,UnderstandingCriminalLaw,1779.
(54)Oneimportantstrandoftheargumenthereisbasedonthefindingthataction-initiatorsinthebrainareformedbeforethesubjectisawareofhisintentiontomove;ifoneidentifiesintentionsonlywithawareness,onegetstheepiphenomenalconclusionquickly.ThedebatebeginswiththeworkofthelateBenjaminLibetandhisassociates.See
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 24 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
egBLibet,CAGleason,EWWright,andDKPearl,TimeofConsciousIntentiontoActinRelationtoOnsetofCerebralActivity(ReadinessPotential).TheUnconsciousInitiationofaFreelyVoluntaryAct(1983)106Brain623642.RelatedistheworkofDWegner(TheIllusionofConsciousWill(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,2002))andHaggard(PHaggardandMElmer,OntheRelationsBetweenBrainPotentialsandtheAwarenessofVoluntaryMovements(1999)126ExperimentalBrainResearch12833).ThemostrecententryistheworkofJohn-DylanHaynes(J-DHaynesetal,ReadingHiddenIntentionsintheHumanBrain(2007)17CurrentBiology3238;UnconsciousDeterminantsofFreeDecisionsintheHumanBrain(2008)11NatureNeuroscience5435).Thisworkinneuroscienceissubjecttovastlydifferentappraisalsintermsoftheefficacyofintentionsincausingbehaviour.Seethediscussionsin:thesymposiumonLibet,in(1985)8BehavioralandBrainSciences;SPockett,WPBanks,andSGallagher(eds),DoesConsciousnessCauseBehavior?(Cambridge:MA:MITPress,2006).MyownentryinthefrayisLibetsChallenge(s)toResponsibleAgency,inLNadelandWSinnott-Armstrong(eds),ConsciousWillandResponsibility:ATributetoBenjaminLibet(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010).
(55)Orsowecompatibilistshavelongargued.SeeMoore,PlacingBlame,ch12.
(56)SeeegFSiegler,UnconsciousIntentions(1967)10Inquiry5167.
(57)IdefendaversionofthisthesisinMSMoore,ResponsibilityandtheUnconscious(1980)53SouthernCaliforniaLawReview1563675,rewrittenaschs7,9,10ofLawandPsychiatry.Theessentialideaisthatweneedmentalstatesofpersonstohavesomeconnectiontoconsciousnessinsomesenseifwearetodistinguishsuchstatesfromthesub-personalstatesofbrainfunctioningthatarenotatallaccessibletoconsciousness.
(58)Inpartbecausehabitualandskilledroutinesuseadifferentuppermotorpathwaythandoconsciouslyplannedroutines,manyneuroscientistsclassifysuchroutinesasunintended.Morality,commonsensepsychology,andthecriminallawbuiltonbothclassifysuchroutinesasintended.ModelPenalCode,2.01(2)(d).
(59)InLawandPsychiatry,ch7,Idistinguishweakerfromstrongersensesofprivilegedaccesstoourownmentalstates;allformsarecashedoutintermsofverbaldispositions,however.Ialsoallowthatonemighthavedeferredprivilegedaccesstounconsciousmentalstates.
(60)Noticethatalthoughtheintentionthedefendanthadonaparticularoccasionisaparticular,itsobjectisarepresentationofatypeofaction.ThisisontheQuineansuppositionthatintentionsandpredictivebeliefsneverrefertoparticularact-tokensthatwilloccurinthefuture,onlytotherebeinginthefuturesomeinstanceofanacttype.Thisadmittedlyfliesinthefaceofordinaryspeech(heintendedthekilling,hepredictedthefire)butisanecessaryregimentationtoavoidheavydutyuseofpossibleworldsandtrans-worldidentityclaims.SeeMSMoore,IntentionsandMensRea,inPlacingBlame,461,n27.
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 25 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
(61)IexploretheseproblemsinlegalinterpretationinMSMoore,TheSemanticsofJudging(1981)54SouthernCaliforniaLawReview151294,andTheNaturalLawTheoryofInterpretation(1985)58SouthernCaliforniaLawReview277398.
(62)EKeedy,CriminalAttemptsatCommonLaw(1954)102UniversityofPennsylvaniaLawReview4647.
(63)Intentionality(withacapitalI)isatermofart.Itwasrediscovered(fromitsearlyusebytheScholasticsintheMiddleAges)byFranzBrentano,whomystifieditwithhisnotionsofIntentionalinexistence.Forsomehistory,seeDDennett,ContentandConsciousness(London:Routledge,1969),ch2.Foranupdate,seeJPerry,Intentionality,inSGuttenplan(ed),BlackwellsCompaniontothePhilosophyofMind(Oxford:Blackwells,1994),38695.
(64)Weinfer,thatis,I(p)fromI(p)viaapremiseofconsistentintentions,namely,(I(p)andI(p)).
(65)FrommymemoryofthelatePhillippaFootesEthicsclassatUC-Berkeleymanyyearsago.
(66)MSMoore,PrimaFacieMoralCulpability,inPlacingBlame,405.
(67)JBentham,TheLimitsofJurisprudenceDefined(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1945),343.
(68)RvFaulkner,13CoxCrimCas550,555,557(1877).
(69)Ishallhereignorewhateverdifferencesmayexistbetweenthecommonlawsmoralwrongdoctrine(RvPrince,2CrownCasesReserved154(1875))andtheModelPenalCodesmaterialelementsdoctrine(whereanelementismaterialifandonlyifitaffectstheevilsoughttobepreventedbythelawdefiningtheoffense:ModelPenalCode,1.13(10)).Forwhateverthenuanceddifferenceshere,bothdoctrineseliminateelementsofoffencesfrommensreaconsiderationonmoralgrounds.
(70)CaliforniaPenalCode,632.
(71)GYaffe,ConditionalIntentandMensRea(2007)10LegalTheory277.
(72)TheUSSupremeCourtadoptedthisversionofthemaximinthecar-jackercase,wheretheintentwasassaultwithadeadlyweaponifthevictimdidnotgiveuphercar.HollowayvUnitedStates,526US1(1999).
(73)ModelPenalCode,2.02(6)simplyprovidesthat:Whenaparticularpurposeisanelementofanoffense,thatelementisestablishedalthoughsuchpurposeisconditional,unlesstheconditionnegativestheharmorevilsoughttobepreventedbythelawdefiningtheoffense.
(74)HollowayvUnitedStates,526US1(1999)(ScaliaJdissenting).
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 26 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
(75)SeegenerallyDressler,UnderstandingCriminalLaw,1412.Thecommonlawholdstheoffendertothegreaterdegreeofthecrimeheinfactdid;theModelPenalCode(s2.04(2))holdstheoffendertothelesserdegreeofthecrimehethoughthewasdoing.
(76)SeegenerallyDressler,UnderstandingCriminalLaw,47989.
(77)DirectorofPublicProsecutionsvSmith[19603]AllER161.
(78)Theassault/batteryinterchangeismostforthrightlyacknowledgedbytheRestatementofTorts(Second),13,18,21.
(79)StatevHatley,72NM377,384P.2d252(1963).
(80)Iignoretheutilitarianrationalizationssometimesproducedindefenceofthesedoctrines.
(81)UnitedStatesvInternationalMineralsandChemicalCorp,402US558,563(1971).
(82)TheModelPenalCodeseeswithadmirableclaritythisfact:thedoctrinethatignoranceofthelawdoesnotexcuseisnotreallyaboutexcusesatall;itisaboutwhatmentalstatesarerequiredforguilt.TheCodealsoseesthatforguilttheaccusedneedholdthecorrectinterpretationofthelawsnomorethanheneedhaveknowledgeofsuchlawsexistence.ModelPenalCode,2.02(7).
(83)PeoplevMarrero,69NY2d382,507NE3d1068(1987).
(84)LarryAlexanderhasagoatdisentanglingsomeoftheseissuesinhisInculpatoryandExclupatoryMistakesandtheFact/LawDistinction(1993)12LawandPhilosophy3370.
(85)Fortheneuroscientificchallengestothefolkpsychology,seeSMorse,DeterminismandtheDeathofFolkPsychology:TwoChallengestoResponsibilityfromNeuroscience(2008)9MinnesotaJournalofLaw,Science,andTechnology135.Forthechallengesfromwithinphilosophy,seeJGreenwood(ed),TheFutureofFolkPsychology(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991).
(86)JFodor,TheLanguageofThought(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1975);Fodor,Psychosemantics:TheProblemofMeaninginthePhilosophyofMind(Cambridge,MA:MITPress,1987).
(87)SeethecitationsinMoore,LawandPsychiatry,25265.
(88)SeegenerallyWProsser,TransferredIntent(1967)45TexasLawReview65062.
(89)SeeegDressler,UnderstandingCriminalLaw,109.
(90)ThefactsofVosburgvPutney,78Wis84,47NW99(1890);80Wis523,50NW403
Intention as a Marker of Moral Culpability and Legal Punishability
Page 27 of 27
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 30 April 2015
(1891).
(91)DiscussedinMoore,IntentionsandMensRea,4756,n50.
(92)SeetheamazingfactsofHyamvDirectorofPublicProsecutions[1974]2AllER41,particularlyasconstruedintheopinionofLordHailsham.
(93)ThefactsofStatevCantua-Ramirez,718P2d1030(Ariz,1986).
(94)AswerethethreedissentingmembersoftheArizonaSupremeCourtinCantua-Ramirez,ibid.
Accessbroughttoyouby: PontificiaUniversidadCatolicadelPeru(PUCP)