Questions week 2a
Question 1
No, direct intent cannot be established since firstly, it is a form of self-defence and secondly,
her aim is to defend herself and not to cause death but to stop the attack.
Question 2
Here indirect intent cannot be established since A firstly does not want to kill her husband but
defend herself, secondly, she is aware of the side effects (which would fall under the category
of indirect intent) but believes it is more likely that B will not die but be severely injured. So,
she foresees the possibility of B being injured rather than B being killed.
Question 3
No, in this example not intent but conscious negligence can be established as A was aware of
the fatal risks of stabbing but chose to believe that B will be only severely injured. Neither
direct intent, indirect intent nor dolus eventualis can be established. The last one requires that
A would believe that B could be killed as a side effect of her conduct, but she would act
nonetheless. Here she believes that death is not likely a side effect but it happened as she
made a wrong assumption.
Conditional intent can be established. Look at lecture slides.
1. Considerable chance (objective component) – if this is met, go to stage 2
2. Conscious (cognitive component) – was the actor aware that there is a considerable
chance.
3. Acceptance (volitional component)
Dutch law – considerable chance
conscious negligence – if she said that he can’t die then she does not accept it.
If you can prove conditional intent then you should jump into it.
Question 4
A acted with direct intent with respect to committing insurance fraud – he willingly wanted to
commit the crime and that was his ultimate aim. He acted with direct intent regarding burning
down his farm as it was necessary side effect (intermediate goal) in committing his goal.
Killing his grandmother was not only not his prime aim but also he hoped that she would
somehow save herself which constitutes indirect intent. (virtually certain).
Direct intent is when a certain action/crime is one’s aim and he/she willingly and
intentionally decide to break the law. Indirect intent deals with consequences (burning down
the farm) that actor does not desire but thinks it is crucial in order to reach the aim and
completion of the offence.
Question 5
he does not want to kill officer (no direct intent); he is virtually certain that he will jump
away (no indirect intent). Conditional intent – chance is not improbable; it is certainly not
imaginary risk enough for establishing considerable chance. But there is no conscious no
chance that he dies so conscious negligence.
Question 6
A does indeed kill B in order to cover up the offence of theft but he lacks intention for killing
B therefore, though actus reus can be established in this case, mens rea, on the other hand,
cannot. This indicates that A cannot be convicted of murder according to German law.
First start with 212 GCC.
1. Actus reus A did kill person (he hit the person). The question whether this is
causation. Factual causation – no. Legal causation reasonably attribute the death
since it happens in response (hospital – responsive intervening cause).
2. Mens rea – conditional intent (chance, conscious, acceptance). murder, art. 211
GCC since he committed voluntary homicide with aggravating
component/circumstance – from the provision “to cover up another offence”.
Question 7
a) In this example I would opt for conviction of negligently causing the death of the
child. It is clear not one part of the accident was wilful and intentional and that this is
a typical case of accident, however, a reasonable person would have considered the
risk of leaving the child in a hot car as potentially harmful.
b) Yes, the answer would be different since, comparing to the previous situation, here the
intent is present which would constitute an unconscious negligence offence – as she
was not aware that this would be dangerous for a child, she still wilfully left it in a hot
car.
She is not aware of the considerable chance (no conditional intent) if she was aware but not
accept – conscious negligence.
Two stages of negligence:
1. Objective stage unreasonable to leave your child in hot car.
2. Subjective stage could the defendant have acted like a reasonable person?