Crimes acts can fall under two categories: general or specific intent. Here is everything you need to know about the differences between general intent and specific intent.
When a person is accused of a crime, the intent is one of the determining factors that define the type and severity of the offense. Intent refers to whether the consequences or outcomes of a crime were intended or accidental. It also refers to whether the crime was meant to be committed in the first place – if the perpetrator went into committing a crime knowing they were breaking the law. The two types of intent, general and specific, are viewed differently in court and under the law.
General Intent
In most criminal cases, prosecutors must prove that a defendant acted at least with general intent. General intent means that the defendant meant to commit a crime, but did so without necessarily intending a specific consequence of their action. Crimes resulting from recklessness and negligence tend to be general intent crimes. In order to fully understand general intent and how prosecutors prove general intent, it is important to keep in mind that the actual consequence of a crime does not matter as much as the intention to commit the crime. A prosecutor must only prove that the offender knowingly committed a crime and that the act was not an accident. Therefore, general intent tends to be much easier to prove than specific intent (discussed in the next section).
Related: Can I Sue for Being Falsely Accused of a Crime?
For example, if John insults Steve and Steve punches John in retaliation, Steve committed the general intent crime of battery. Because John insulted Steve, Steve intended and decided to commit a crime and punch John. It does not matter whether or not Steve originally meant to harm John. It does not even matter if Steve meant to harm John with the punch. To prove general intent, the only thing that matters is that Steve intended to punch John.
General intent crimes include but are not limited to:
- Battery
- Assault
- Rape
- Driving under the influence
- Kidnapping
- Second-degree murder
- Third-degree murder
- False imprisonment
Specific Intent
Specific intent crimes tend to be harder to prove than general intent. For a person to commit a specific intent crime, that person must have had a desire to commit an intentional unlawful act, and they must have intended for that unlawful act to achieve a specific result. Specific intent means that an individual committed a crime with a specific purpose and to achieve a particular outcome. In simple terms, for a defendant to be charged with specific intent, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had a motive for their actions.
For example, if John is an employee who handles money transactions for an employer and John meaningfully and secretly takes some of the money for himself, he has committed the specific intent crime of embezzlement. This is a specific intent crime because John both knowingly unlawfully stole the money from his employer and intended to steal the money for his personal benefit. The fact that John committed the crime specifically to benefit from the stolen money makes this a specific intent crime rather than just a general intent crime.
Related: How to Sue for Slander: Defamation Lawsuit
Charging for specific intent also depends on the mental state and coherency of the defendant when the defendant committed the crime. The prosecution cannot prove specific intent if the defendant’s mental state was compromised or if their mental state cannot be inferred from the criminal act. There must be a clear-minded specific reason or objective behind the crime.
Specific intent crimes include but are not limited to:
- Aggravated assault
- Aggravated battery
- Larceny
- Murder
- Forgery
- Embezzlement
- Conspiracy
- Burglary
- Robbery
- First-degree murder
Contact Us
If you or a loved one would like to learn more about General Intent vs Specific Intent, get your free consultation with one of our Employment Attorneys today!