Journal
CAMBRIDGE LAW JOURNAL
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0008197323000442
Keywords
criminal law; mens rea; punishment
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This article discusses the criminal law doctrine of transferred malice and points out the overlooked phenomenon of recycled malice. The article argues that there is no convincing justification for the recycling of mens rea.
The criminal law doctrine of transferred malice has been much discussed. What has gone comparatively unnoticed is the phenomenon of recycled malice. For example, those who endorse transferred malice would hold that, if D tries to shoot V, and the shot misses and hits T, D's intention to hit V is transferred to T, and a completed offence against T is constructed. But many legal systems that endorse transferred malice also allow D to be convicted of an attempted offence against V. In other words, D's intention to hit V can apparently be used multiple times. Once this phenomenon is noticed, a question arises over its justification and limits. This article argues that no convincing justification for recycling mens rea exists.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available