Understanding Specific vs. General Intent Crimes

In criminal law, the distinction between specific and general intent crimes serves as a fundamental cornerstone. These two categories elucidate the varying degrees of mental state required for criminal liability, influencing both the charges brought against an individual and the strategies employed in their defense. At the heart of criminal liability lies the concept of mens rea, or criminal intent. The intent, or state of mind, of an individual when committing a crime is crucial in determining their level of culpability and can therefore affect things from charging decisions to punishment and sentencing.

In specific intent crimes, the prosecution must establish that the defendant not only engaged in the prohibited act (actus reus) but also harbored a particular mental state or purpose beyond the mere commission of the act. These crimes require a higher level of culpability, as they involve intent to achieve a specific outcome beyond the actions themselves.

• Burglary: A classic example of a specific intent crime, burglary, requires the defendant to not only unlawfully enter a structure (actus reus) but also possess the specific intent to commit a theft or felony therein.
• First-Degree Murder: In cases of first-degree murder, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant not only intentionally caused the death of another person (actus reus) but also did so with premeditation and deliberation, indicating a specific intent to take a life.

• Lack of Intent: One of the primary defenses for specific intent crimes involves challenging the prosecution's ability to prove the required specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense may argue that the defendant lacked the necessary mental state to commit the crime.

Conversely, general intent crimes do not require the establishment of a specific, conscious intent beyond the act itself. In these cases, the prosecution need only show that the defendant intended to engage in the prohibited act, irrespective of any specific ulterior motive.

• Assault: A quintessential general intent crime, assault requires the defendant to intentionally engage in an act that causes another person to reasonably fear imminent harmful or offensive contact.
• Rape: In cases of rape, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally engaged in sexual intercourse without the victim's consent, focusing on the defendant's intent to engage in the act itself rather than a specific intent to cause harm.

• Lack of Intent to Commit the Act: A defense strategy for general intent crimes might involve arguing that the defendant did not intend to commit the prohibited act. For instance, in an assault case, the defense may assert that the defendant did not intend to create fear of harmful or offensive contact.
• Consent: In general intent crimes like rape, consent becomes a pivotal factor. The defense may contend that the alleged victim consented to the act, negating the essential element of lack of consent required for the offense.

While the distinction between specific and general intent crimes may not always lead to significant disparities in sentencing, the nature of the offense, aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and a defendant's criminal history are crucial factors in determining penalties. In California, the state's sentencing guidelines play a pivotal role in ensuring a fair and consistent approach to punishment.

Specific intent crimes may lead to enhanced penalties due to their inherently heightened level of culpability. For instance, a conviction for first-degree murder, a specific intent crime, can result in more severe sentencing, including the possibility of life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty, depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances.

Sentencing for general intent crimes depends on factors such as the nature of the injury caused to the victim, the use of weapons, and a defendant's prior criminal record. While general intent crimes may not carry inherently enhanced penalties based solely on intent, factors specific to the case can influence sentencing outcomes.

Understanding the nuances of intent is essential for criminal defense attorneys. Crafting effective defense strategies requires an astute grasp of the intent element of the crime. If you have been arrested for either a general intent or a specific it is imperative that you discuss your case immediately with a knowledgeable and aggressive criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. As a former Deputy District Attorney with over 14 years of prosecutorial experience, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Michael Kraut has a deep understanding of this legal concept.

For more information about the criminal justice process, and to schedule your free consultation, contact Michael Kraut at the Kraut Criminal & DUI Lawyers located at 6255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1520, Los Angeles, CA 90028. Mr. Kraut can be reached 24/7 at (888) 334-6344 or (323) 464-6453.