Intention

doi:10.1017/9781009038126.003

3 - Intention

from Part I - Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 July 2025

Matthew Dyson and

Thomas Weigend

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg August Universität Göttingen
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
University of Bremen
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Köln

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A comparison of ‘intention’ and its role in criminal law is made extremely difficult by the overlaps and imperfections in terminology, both in common law and German law. There are also significant differences in how courts, academics and laypeople understand and apply the terms. The authors therefore concentrate on the substantive questions behind the legal terms: what makes ‘intentional’ offending more dangerous and more blameworthy than non-intentional causation of similar harm? What types or degrees of intention can be differentiated because they imply more or less intense subjective violations of legal rules? In particular, is there a normative difference between actors who wish to achieve a certain result and those who do not but are reasonably certain that they will bring about this result? How should the law deal with actors who know that they engage in risky behaviour but are unsure about its effect?

Keywords

Intention recklessness risk-taking dolus directus dolus eventualis conditional intent culpa Vorsatz

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Volume III
, pp. 55 - 95

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009038126.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, L. and Ferzan, K. K., Crime and Culpability: A Theory of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Ambos, K., ‘Präterintentionalität und Erfolgsqualifikation’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, [2002], 455.Google Scholar

American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, American Law Institute (1962).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A., Principles of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1991).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. and Blake, M., ‘The Presumption of Innocence in English Criminal Law’, Criminal Law Review, [1996], 306.Google Scholar

Austin, J., Lectures on Jurisprudence: Or the Philosophy of Positive Law, John Murray (1861–63).Google Scholar

Austin, J. and Austin, S., Lectures on Jurisprudence, 2nd edn, John Murray (1869), Vol. 3.Google Scholar

Baumann, J., Weber, U., Mitsch, W. and Eisele, J., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 13th edn, Gieseking (2021).Google Scholar

Bentham, J., An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A. (eds.), Oxford University Press (1970).Google Scholar

Bohlander, M., ‘Transferred Malice and Transferred Defences: A Critique of the Traditional Doctrine and Arguments for a Change in Paradigm’, New Criminal Law Review, 13 (2010), 555.CrossRef Google Scholar

Caldwell, H. M., ‘The Prostitution of Lying in Wait’, University of Miami Law Review, 57 (2003), 311.Google Scholar

Clark, E. C., An Analysis of Criminal Liability, Cambridge University Press (1880).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., ‘The Obscure Intentions of the House of Lords’, Criminal Law Review, [1986], 771.Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., Intention, Agency and Criminal Liability, Blackwell (1990).Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., ‘The Circumstances of an Attempt’, Cambridge Law Journal, [1991], 100.Google Scholar

Duff, R. A., Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in the Criminal Law, Hart (2007).Google Scholar

Duttge, G., ‘Vorsatz’, in Hilgendorf, E., Kudlich, H. and Valerius, B. (eds.), Handbuch des Strafrechts, C. F. Müller (2020), Vol. 2, 312.Google Scholar

Dyson, M., ‘Scrapping Khan’, Criminal Law Review, [2014], 445.Google Scholar

Dyson, M., Explaining Tort and Crime, Cambridge University Press (2023).Google Scholar

Eisele, J., ‘§ 15’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Eisele, J., ‘§ 176’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Eisele, J., ‘§ 184j’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Eisele, J., ‘Vor §§ 13 ff.’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Eldar, S., ‘The Limits of Transferred Malice’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 32 (2012), 633.CrossRef Google Scholar

Eschelbach, R., ‘§ 184j’, in Matt, H. and Renzikowski, J., Strafgesetzbuch, 2nd edn, Vahlen (2020).Google Scholar

Finnis, J., ‘Intention and Side-Effects’, in Frey, R. G. and Morris, C. W. (eds.), Liability and Responsibility: Essays in Law and Morals, Cambridge University Press (1991).Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. P., Basic Concepts of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (1998).Google Scholar

Frisch, W., Vorsatz und Risiko, Heymann (1983).Google Scholar

Frisch, W., Strafrecht, Vahlen (2022).Google Scholar

Frister, H., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, C. H. Beck (2018).Google Scholar

Frister, H., ‘Vorsatzdogmatik in Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, [2019], 381.Google Scholar

Gaede, K., ‘Auf dem Weg zum potentiellen Vorsatz?’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 121 (2009), 239.Google Scholar

Geisler, C., Zur Vereinbarkeit objektiver Bedingungen der Strafbarkeit mit dem Schuldprinzip, Duncker & Humblot (1998).Google Scholar

Gericke, J. ‘§ 337’, in Barthe, C. and Gericke, J. (eds.), Karlsruher Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, 9th edn, C. H. Beck (2023).Google Scholar

Glazebrook, P. R., ‘Should We Have a Law of Attempted Crime’, Law Quarterly Review, 85 (1969), 28.Google Scholar

Griew, E., ‘Consistency, Communication and Codification: Reflections on Two Mens Rea Words’, in Glazebrook, P. (ed.), Reshaping the Criminal Law: Essays in Honour of Glanville Williams, Stevens & Sons (1978), 62.Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., ‘Intention and Punishment’, in Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (2008, 2nd impression).Google Scholar

Hart, H. L. A., Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press (2008, 2nd impression).CrossRef Google Scholar

Heine, G. and Schuster, F., ‘§ 267’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Herzberg, R. D., ‘Das Wollen beim Vorsatzdelikt und dessen Unterscheidung vom bewußt fahrlässigen Verhalten, Teil 2’, Juristenzeitung, 43 (1988), 635.Google Scholar

Hirsch, H. J., ‘Untauglicher Versuch und Tatstrafrecht’, in Schünemann, B. Achenbach, H., Bottke, W. et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Claus Roxin zum 70. Geburtstag, De Gruyter (2001), 711.Google Scholar

Hohmann, O., ‘§ 231’, in Erb, V. and Schäfer, J. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2021).Google Scholar

Horder, J., ‘Intention in the Criminal Law: A Rejoinder’, Modern Law Review, 58 (1995), 678.CrossRef Google Scholar

Horder, J., ‘Crimes of Ulterior Intent’, in Simester, A. P. and Smith, A. T. H. (eds.), Harm and Culpability, Oxford University Press (1996).Google Scholar

Horder, J., ‘Transferred Malice and the Remoteness of Unexpected Outcomes from Intentions’, Criminal Law Review, [2006], 383.Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Plädoyer für die Aufgabe der Kategorie “bedingter Vorsatz”’, Juristenzeitung, [2019], 440.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hoven, E. and Hahn, J., ‘Der Versuch des Wohnungseinbruchsdiebstahls’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, [2021], 588.Google Scholar

Joecks, W. and Kulhanek, T., ‘§ 16’, in von Heintschel-Heinegg, B. (ed.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar

Kargl, W., Der strafrechtliche Vorsatz auf der Basis der kognitiven Handlungstheorie, Peter Lang (1993).Google Scholar

Kaspar, J., ‘Sentencing Guidelines vs. Free Judicial Discretion: Is German Sentencing Law in Need of Reform?’, in Ambos, K. (ed.), Strafzumessung – Sentencing, Göttingen University Press (2020), 337.Google Scholar

Kenny, A. J. P., ‘Intention and Purpose in Law’, in Summers, R. S. (ed.), Essays in Legal Philosophy, Oxford University Press (1968).Google Scholar

Kindhäuser, U., ‘Gleichgültigkeit als Vorsatz?’, in Lagodny, O., Burkhardt, B., Gropp, W. et al. (eds.), Menschengerechtes Strafrecht, Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag, C. H. Beck (2005), 345.Google Scholar

Kindhäuser, U. and Hilgendorf, E., Strafgesetzbuch: Lehr- und Praxiskommentar, 8th edn, Nomos (2020).Google Scholar

Koriath, H., Grundlagen der strafrechtlichen Zurechnung, Duncker & Humblot (1994).Google Scholar

Kudlich, H., ‘Versuch’, in Hilgendorf, E., Kudlich, H. and Valerius, B. (eds.), Handbuch des Strafrechts, C. F. Müller (2020), Vol. 2, § 57.Google Scholar

Kühl, K., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, 8th edn, Vahlen (2017).CrossRef Google Scholar

Lamond, G., ‘Coercion, Threats and the Puzzle of Blackmail’, in Simester, A. P. and Smith, A. T. H. (eds.), Harm and Culpability, Clarendon Press (1996).Google Scholar

Law Commission, Working Paper No. 31: Codification of the Criminal Law: General Principles. The Mental Element in Crime, HMSO (1970).Google Scholar

Law Commission, A Criminal Code for England and Wales: Volume 1, Report and Draft Criminal Code Bill, HMSO (1989).Google Scholar

Li, Y., ‘Die neuere BGH-Rechtsprechung zum Versuchsbeginn bei Auf- und Einbruchdiebstahl’, Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, [2021], 430.Google Scholar

Murmann, U., ‘§ 22’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2021), Vol. 2.Google Scholar

Murmann, U., ‘vor § 22’ in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2021), Vol. 2.Google Scholar

Norrie, A. W., ‘After Woollin’, Criminal Law Review, [1999], 532.Google Scholar

Puppe, I., ‘§ 15’, in Kindhäuser, U., Neumann, U. and Paeffgen, H.-U. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch. Kommentar, 6th edn, Nomos (2023).Google Scholar

Rengier, R., Erfolgsqualifizierte Delikte und verwandte Erscheinungsformen, Mohr Siebeck (1986).Google Scholar

Robinson, P. H., Criminal Law, Aspen Law & Business (1997).Google Scholar

Roxin, C. and Greco, L., Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil I, 5th edn, C. H. Beck (2020).Google Scholar

Royal Commission on Criminal Laws, Fourth Report (1839) Parl. Pap.Google Scholar

Royal Commission on Criminal Laws, Seventh Report (1843) Parl. Pap.Google Scholar

Schneider, H., ‘§ 212’, in Erb, V. and Schäfer, J. (eds.), Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, 4th edn, C. H. Beck (2012).Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., ‘Why Distinguish Intention from Foresight’, in Simester, A. P. and Smith, A. T. H. (eds.), Harm and Culpability, Clarendon Press (1996).CrossRef Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., ‘Intoxication Is Never a Defence’, Criminal Law Review, [2009], 3.Google Scholar

Simester, A. P., Fundamentals of Criminal Law, Oxford University Press (2021).CrossRef Google Scholar

Smith, J. C., ‘Commentary on Nedrick’, Criminal Law Review, [1986], 742.Google Scholar

Smith, K. J. M., Lawyers, Legislators and Theorists: Developments in English Criminal Jurisprudence, 1800–1957, Clarendon Press (1998).CrossRef Google Scholar

Spencer, J. R., ‘Murder in the Dark: A Glimmer of Light?’, Cambridge Law Journal, [1986], 366.CrossRef Google Scholar

Stephen, J. F., History of the Criminal Law of England, Macmillan (1883), Vol. II.Google Scholar

Sternberg-Lieben, D. and Schuster, F., ‘§ 15’, in Schönke, A. and Schröder, H., Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 30th edn, C. H. Beck (2019).Google Scholar

Stroud, D. A., Mens Rea or Imputability under the Law of England, Sweet & Maxwell (1914).Google Scholar

Stuckenberg, C.-F., Vorstudien zu Vorsatz und Irrtum im Völkerstrafrecht, de Gruyter (2007).CrossRef Google Scholar

Sullivan, G. R., ‘Intent, Subjective Recklessness and Culpability’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 12 (1992), 38.CrossRef Google Scholar

Vogel, J. and Bülte, J., ‘§ 15’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Vogel, J. and Bülte, J., ‘§ 18’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Vogel, J. and Bülte, J., ‘Vor § 15’, in Cirener, G., Radtke, H., Rissing-van Saan, R. et al. (eds.), Strafgesetzbuch: Leipziger Kommentar, 13th edn, de Gruyter (2020), Vol. 1.Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Zwischen Vorsatz und Fahrlässigkeit’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 93 (1981), 657.Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Richtlinien für die Strafzumessung’, in Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät (ed.), Festschrift der Rechtswissenschaftlichen Fakultät zur 600-Jahr-Feier der Universität zu Köln, Heymann (1988), 579.Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘Constructive Malice Revived’, Modern Law Review, 23 (1960), 605.Google Scholar

Williams, G., The Mental Element in Crime, Magnes Press (1965).Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘The Lords and Impossible Attempts or Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?’, Cambridge Law Journal, [1986], 33.CrossRef Google Scholar

Williams, G., ‘The Mens Rea for Murder: Leave It Alone’, Law Quarterly Review, 105 (1989), 387.Google Scholar

Wright, R. S., Draft of a Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure for the Island of Jamaica, HMSO (1877).Google Scholar

Zaibert, L., Five Ways Patricia Can Kill Her Husband: A Theory of Intentionality and Blame, Open Court (2005).Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.