Intoxication and criminal liability: some questions
1. What is the difference between specific intent and basic intent?
In broad terms, specific intent refers to a mental element of intention, while
basic intent refers to a mental element of recklessness.
A crime is one of specific intent if it can be committed only with a mental
element of intention, and a crime is one of basic intent if it can be committed
with a mental element ‘lower’ than intention – ie, recklessness or ‘lower’.
It is arguably imperfect to refer to ‘crimes’ of specific or basic intent, because,
a crime may require different mental elements on the various elements of the
actus reus. For example, in the offence of rape, D must intend to penetrate, but
need only lack a reasonable belief as to whether V consents: so, the offence of
rape appears to have specific and basic intent elements. Perhaps it is better to
refer to elements rather than crimes of specific or basic intent.
The vocabulary of specific and basic intent seems to only be used in the context
of intoxication and criminal liability.
2. What is the significance of the distinction
between voluntary and involuntary intoxication? How does that
distinction connect with the principles of criminal law we looked at in the
week 8 plenary?
Remember, on the issue of criminal liability, the distinction is only significant at
all if the defendant is so intoxicated that they do not form the mens rea for the
offence.
Where D is intoxicated to that extent, if their intoxication is VOLUNTARY then
they will avoid liability for an offence of specific intent, but their intoxication
will NOT cause them to avoid liability for an offence of basic intent. In essence,
they can avoid liability for really serious offences, but not for less serious ones.
So, if D is so (voluntarily) intoxicated that he shoots and kills V, and his
intoxication is such that he thinks V is a dummy he regularly uses for target
practice, then D may avoid liability for murder because his intoxication has
prevented him from forming the (specific) intention to kill or cause gbh to a
person in being.
Note that there is a ‘fall-back’ situation here - D may well be liable for
manslaughter through gross negligence, because this is an offence for which
(specific) intention is not required.
Page 1 of 3
1. What is the difference between specific intent and basic intent?
In broad terms, specific intent refers to a mental element of intention, while
basic intent refers to a mental element of recklessness.
A crime is one of specific intent if it can be committed only with a mental
element of intention, and a crime is one of basic intent if it can be committed
with a mental element ‘lower’ than intention – ie, recklessness or ‘lower’.
It is arguably imperfect to refer to ‘crimes’ of specific or basic intent, because,
a crime may require different mental elements on the various elements of the
actus reus. For example, in the offence of rape, D must intend to penetrate, but
need only lack a reasonable belief as to whether V consents: so, the offence of
rape appears to have specific and basic intent elements. Perhaps it is better to
refer to elements rather than crimes of specific or basic intent.
The vocabulary of specific and basic intent seems to only be used in the context
of intoxication and criminal liability.
2. What is the significance of the distinction
between voluntary and involuntary intoxication? How does that
distinction connect with the principles of criminal law we looked at in the
week 8 plenary?
Remember, on the issue of criminal liability, the distinction is only significant at
all if the defendant is so intoxicated that they do not form the mens rea for the
offence.
Where D is intoxicated to that extent, if their intoxication is VOLUNTARY then
they will avoid liability for an offence of specific intent, but their intoxication
will NOT cause them to avoid liability for an offence of basic intent. In essence,
they can avoid liability for really serious offences, but not for less serious ones.
So, if D is so (voluntarily) intoxicated that he shoots and kills V, and his
intoxication is such that he thinks V is a dummy he regularly uses for target
practice, then D may avoid liability for murder because his intoxication has
prevented him from forming the (specific) intention to kill or cause gbh to a
person in being.
Note that there is a ‘fall-back’ situation here - D may well be liable for
manslaughter through gross negligence, because this is an offence for which
(specific) intention is not required.
Page 1 of 3
