One approach to defining Intention is to use the counterfactual tools developed to define Causality. Direct Intention is considered the highest level of intent in the common law, and is a sufficient component for the most serious crimes to be committed. Loosely defined it is the commission of actions to bring about a desired or targeted outcome. Direct Intention is not always necessary for the most serious category of crimes because society has also found it necessary to develop a theory of intention around side-effects, known as oblique intent or indirect intent. This is to prevent moral harms from going unpunished which were not the aim of the actor, but were natural consequences nevertheless. This paper uses a canonical example of a plane owner, planting a bomb on their own plane in order to collect insurance, to illustrate how two accounts of counterfactual intent do not conclude that murder of the plane's passengers and crew were directly intended. We extend both frameworks to include a definition of oblique intent developed in Ashton (2021)
翻译:一种界定意图的方法是,利用为界定因果关系而开发的反事实工具,直接意图被视为普通法中最高层次的意图,是犯下最严重罪行的足够组成部分; 粗略的定义是采取行动实现预期或有目标的结果; 最严重罪行不一定总是需要直接意图,因为社会也认为有必要围绕副作用,即所谓斜心或间接意图,形成意图理论; 防止道德损害不受惩罚,这不是行为者的目的,而是自然后果; 本文用飞机所有人的一个典型例子,在自己的飞机上放置炸弹,以收集保险,说明反事实意图的两个说法如何没有得出杀害飞机乘客和机组人员是直接意图的结论; 我们扩大这两个框架,以列入在阿什顿(2021年)拟订的关于恶意的定义。