Quote of the Day
From the foreign desk…
At a news conference announcing Childs’ arrest, District Attorney Kamala Harris was tightlipped about what his motive may have been.
“Motive is not necessarily an element of a crime,” Harris said. “This city employee committed four felonies.”
District Attorney?
You might be confusing “motive” with “intent.” The DA is entirely correct: “motive” is not an element of a crime and need not be demonstrated either to a grand jury for indictment or to a petit jury for conviction.
The distinction essentially is: “intent” can mean “intent to perform the act resulting in the crime” and not just “intent to commit the crime” or “intent to harm.” The specific definition of “intent” depends of course on the specific crime in question.
I recall an old IBM commercial where a young hacker says to the camera: “Why do we wreck computer systems? For the same reason we pierce our tongues!” That sorta kinda demonstrates the difference between “intent” and “motive.”
Cheers…
Comment by KipEsquire — 7/16/2008 @ 10:02 am
That I understand, Kip. For the DA to say “proof of motive is not necessarily required to prosecute a criminal” would make perfect sense, but to suggest that motive is not an element of a crime seems a bit daft, to me at least.
Comment by James — 7/16/2008 @ 1:15 pm
Indeed, it looks a bit silly, the way it’s phrased. Motive is necessarily an element of all actions, including alleged crimes, other than those committed without volition, I would say.
Comment by Adam — 7/16/2008 @ 1:45 pm