According to the Google Dictionary, "intent" means "intention". When a dictionary describes a word using the word itself, you know it's something that is going to have a variety of interpretations.
So, "intention," apparently it's the "act of intending." Wow. Enlightening. I'll have a look at the alternative definition, let's see... "an aim or a plan." Now at least I have something to work with - if when committing a crime, you have an aim or a plan, that suggests pre-meditation; so if there is no pre-meditation, can there still be intent?
I think so. Intent is all about wanting to do something. So, I walk into the kitchen, see an apple, cross the room "intending to eat it" and then eat it. Not much pre-meditation occurred, but I cannot honestly say that I didn't not want to eat the apple. In which case, I might argue that intention is about not being forced to do something: it might have been a spur of the moment decision - eating the apple - but I did it, and even if I regret it, I cannot say that it wasn't a conscious choice.
But when the lines of choice become blurred, when there is pressure involved, a hard decision where you have to pick between two things - choose the lesser of two evils, as it were - does the choice to commit a crime still have intent if you didn't necessarily want to do it? In the same vein, does intention count when the intention is not to commit the crime, but to benefit from the result? And why does committing that crime matter if it hurts nobody but yourself and somebody else who consents? I've probably talked about it before on this blog, but my favourite case to discuss when taking this line of attack is of a man and a woman who, in favour of getting a tattoo, shaped a metal coat-hanger into each others' initials, and branded it into each others' skin. They intended to do it; they didn't want to hurt each other, but they mutually benefitted from the mark of love left behind by the 'abuse.' So, if accused of abuse, what is their defence? That they wanted to show their love for each other? Many abusers and abuse victims might argue the same, but in this case they were acquitted. Why is that? Because there was no enjoyment or pleasure in the actual hurting of one another, and if there was, it would be an entirely different issue. In the same way that the self-defence plea is used, the person did not derive any pleasure or benefit beyond the immediate protection of their life.
So, clearly, to me at least, intention is more than simply wanting to do something. Intention can be present even if no pleasure was derived from committing the act - so the full interpretation of what intention is about includes the intricate reasoning behind why a person chose to do something. Yes, yes I did it, because...
And thus concludes this post, comments appreciated :)
Thursday, 27 June 2013
Monday, 24 June 2013
GCHQ Data-Tapping
Before you read this, I'm just going to say that I'm going to play Devil's Advocate - meaning that I'm arguing a point of view that isn't necessarily my own. If you agree or don't agree with what I'm writing here, I'd really welcome comments explaining your reasoning in the nature of an honest debate (abusive comments will be deleted if I can work out how to do that).
If you've got nothing to hide, why would you mind about who's reading what you're writing or listening to what you're saying? GCHQ might be a branch of the "corrupt and obviously untrustworthy" Government, but weren't they trying to protect us?
.jpg)
We're protected by a freedom of speech, so in all fairness we can say whatever we like publicly, and we can't be prosecuted for it (as long as we're not being racist, sexist, terrorist, homophobic, etc). And I really doubt that the government cares that you're texting your mum about the fact you need more shampoo - what they care about is if your next door neighbour is planning a terrorist attack on a nearby primary school.
In this case, you could probably call yourself collateral damage - yes, it's a shame that the government has been looking through your dubious internet history, but if - as a result of doing this to everybody - they catch a few would-be-mass-murderers, then I can't see why there should be a massive problem.
Public opinion is that this is something that is inherently wrong, and that the government has no right to access the personal data that they have been - but I'd argue in this case that if you're doing something that somebody bound by confidentiality shouldn't see, you probably shouldn't be doing it. You can be outraged all you like about the Government sticking their noses into your business, but it was perfectly legal when it was done, and it was done in the public interest.
Like I said, please comment with your thoughts and ideas about the issue below - thanks for reading!
If you've got nothing to hide, why would you mind about who's reading what you're writing or listening to what you're saying? GCHQ might be a branch of the "corrupt and obviously untrustworthy" Government, but weren't they trying to protect us?
We're protected by a freedom of speech, so in all fairness we can say whatever we like publicly, and we can't be prosecuted for it (as long as we're not being racist, sexist, terrorist, homophobic, etc). And I really doubt that the government cares that you're texting your mum about the fact you need more shampoo - what they care about is if your next door neighbour is planning a terrorist attack on a nearby primary school.
In this case, you could probably call yourself collateral damage - yes, it's a shame that the government has been looking through your dubious internet history, but if - as a result of doing this to everybody - they catch a few would-be-mass-murderers, then I can't see why there should be a massive problem.
Public opinion is that this is something that is inherently wrong, and that the government has no right to access the personal data that they have been - but I'd argue in this case that if you're doing something that somebody bound by confidentiality shouldn't see, you probably shouldn't be doing it. You can be outraged all you like about the Government sticking their noses into your business, but it was perfectly legal when it was done, and it was done in the public interest.
Like I said, please comment with your thoughts and ideas about the issue below - thanks for reading!
Saturday, 22 June 2013
Intentions vs Actions (Extended Project)
I've had my first meeting with my Extended Project Supervisor, and I went in with about 7 potential titles for my project - and now I have a really good idea of exactly what I'm going to write about.
The focus is going to be whether the intention that a person has when committing a crime should make them exempt from the consequences of that action, and what factors might be taken into consideration with sentencing. For me, it's an endlessly fascinating subject, and I really like the idea of being able to explore issues such as the manslaughter and murder debate, and also perhaps even look into whether the punishment ever really fits the crime.
Something else that I'd really like to explore, perhaps not as the major focus, but instead as a factor, is the Euthanasia debate. This is particularly poignant as the Tony Nicklinson case particularly caught my intention when it broke out in the news over the past three or so years, and it had been something that I was following as it progressed.
Personally, I think that Euthanasia, particularly "assisted suicide," is not an inherently bad idea, but something that I question is whether it would ever be able to implemented in society without some vulnerable people being put in danger. Not something for my essay perhaps, but it would be particularly interesting to explore what safe-guards and systems could be put in place to protect the greater society.
The main distinction that I'm going to have to make is what exactly "intention" means. I question whether pre-meditation should be taken into account, and whether perhaps some cases of pre-meditated murder may also be classed as self-defence, and whether killing a person may sometimes be the better of two evils (e.g. Euthanasia). There are even some cases where I want to explore whether the law has a right to interfere if people do not want or feel that they need protecting each other: this is particularly poignant in cases of sado-masochism, etc.
Similarly, the "anti-spanking movement" and the legislation which means that parents can no longer physically punish their children, families not only have a Right to Family Life, but - at least I found from when I was growing up - it was actually quite a good way of keeping me in line. I don't think I'm any less of a person, any more repressed than anyone else, and I think in some cases I literally gave my parents no other choice. But like I said, that's just my case - and I wouldn't presume to say that all children are safe from their parents - but I would perhaps argue that a blanket ban is not the answer. And besides, looking at my extended project title, the line between spanking children for punishment and abuse is that the intention is a loving one - parents want their children to learn from their mistakes, and be the best they can be. Perhaps this would take up some part of my Project, but I'll need to do a bit more research into the specific law.
Feel free to comment, in fact I encourage it - thank you for reading :)
The focus is going to be whether the intention that a person has when committing a crime should make them exempt from the consequences of that action, and what factors might be taken into consideration with sentencing. For me, it's an endlessly fascinating subject, and I really like the idea of being able to explore issues such as the manslaughter and murder debate, and also perhaps even look into whether the punishment ever really fits the crime.
Something else that I'd really like to explore, perhaps not as the major focus, but instead as a factor, is the Euthanasia debate. This is particularly poignant as the Tony Nicklinson case particularly caught my intention when it broke out in the news over the past three or so years, and it had been something that I was following as it progressed.
Personally, I think that Euthanasia, particularly "assisted suicide," is not an inherently bad idea, but something that I question is whether it would ever be able to implemented in society without some vulnerable people being put in danger. Not something for my essay perhaps, but it would be particularly interesting to explore what safe-guards and systems could be put in place to protect the greater society.
The main distinction that I'm going to have to make is what exactly "intention" means. I question whether pre-meditation should be taken into account, and whether perhaps some cases of pre-meditated murder may also be classed as self-defence, and whether killing a person may sometimes be the better of two evils (e.g. Euthanasia). There are even some cases where I want to explore whether the law has a right to interfere if people do not want or feel that they need protecting each other: this is particularly poignant in cases of sado-masochism, etc.
Similarly, the "anti-spanking movement" and the legislation which means that parents can no longer physically punish their children, families not only have a Right to Family Life, but - at least I found from when I was growing up - it was actually quite a good way of keeping me in line. I don't think I'm any less of a person, any more repressed than anyone else, and I think in some cases I literally gave my parents no other choice. But like I said, that's just my case - and I wouldn't presume to say that all children are safe from their parents - but I would perhaps argue that a blanket ban is not the answer. And besides, looking at my extended project title, the line between spanking children for punishment and abuse is that the intention is a loving one - parents want their children to learn from their mistakes, and be the best they can be. Perhaps this would take up some part of my Project, but I'll need to do a bit more research into the specific law.
Feel free to comment, in fact I encourage it - thank you for reading :)
Monday, 10 June 2013
First Job!
Yes! You read it! I got my first job about a week ago, and it's fantastic! No, it's not the dream job, but it's pretty dreamy for a 17 year old with no money. The main thing that I'm having to learn is social skills when I first meet and work with people, the nerves get to me... I was serving a German couple and you could literally hear the plates shaking - I was so embarrassed, but they were lovely about it. Similarly when I was silver serving bread, I just couldn't pick it up! Practise makes perfect though, if nothing else, this is going to help an awful lot with perseverance, it seems impossible at the moment.
My colleagues are great, a real laugh, and I can't think of any better place to work at my age - a perfect distance from home; not an overbearing amount of responsibility; and the possibility of learning a huge number of skills, especially as it's a rather fancy hotel. I'm really glad I decided to go out and get some independence, and it'll be really nice to be able to buy things for myself without having to have my parents lend me money.
I'm Katie Woolnough, and at the moment, I'm a waitress/dishwasher/aspiring-solicitor-barrister.
My colleagues are great, a real laugh, and I can't think of any better place to work at my age - a perfect distance from home; not an overbearing amount of responsibility; and the possibility of learning a huge number of skills, especially as it's a rather fancy hotel. I'm really glad I decided to go out and get some independence, and it'll be really nice to be able to buy things for myself without having to have my parents lend me money.
I'm Katie Woolnough, and at the moment, I'm a waitress/dishwasher/aspiring-solicitor-barrister.
Monday, 3 June 2013
Extended Project
I woke up this morning, and my dad came downstairs with a cup of tea for me (yes!) and we had a talk about what I could do for my extended project. At the moment, I have about three ideas.
The first is looking at the legal system's treatment of rape victims; for example, the recent Oxford case, as I read an article that talked about the fact that each victim was being cross examined by about 14 different defence barristers, and it was a horrible experience. I'd look into the possible need for a reformation of the system and the human rights of these victims.
Second, I was thinking about when the intention of a law and the specific wording of a law collide - this has particularly interested me since I read a book called "What About Law" by a number of Cambridge lecturers, and it discussed two cases where the same laws (against harming another person) conflicted as a result of intent. I'm tempted to develop a couple of examples where currently there is some dispute, as a result of intent, including Euthanasia laws - perhaps developing a few case studies?
Third, I'm shamelessly researching the people who may one day be my lecturers (if I'm lucky enough to get the grades) and am going to read into the subjects that they specialise in to see what if there's anything that really gets me interested. In an ideal world, I'd have loved to have done something in Constitutional Law, having studied it in Politics - but because I've looked at it in one of my courses, I'm not allowed to complete my project on it. I really enjoy looking at the powers of the Judiciary and the fluctuating powers that the Government has as a result of laws passed involving the UK's uncodified and un-entrenched constitution, and I'd have loved to have had a look into the changing nature of the constitution.
Speaking of, as I haven't out-right studied it in Politics beyond the fleeting mention as an example, do you think I'd be allowed to look into the implications of a British Bill of Rights on the judiciary, and the success of the Human Rights Act previous to this? Maybe, maybe not, but I'll ask when I go back to school...
Ciao! Comments and suggestions would be much appreciated!
The first is looking at the legal system's treatment of rape victims; for example, the recent Oxford case, as I read an article that talked about the fact that each victim was being cross examined by about 14 different defence barristers, and it was a horrible experience. I'd look into the possible need for a reformation of the system and the human rights of these victims.
Second, I was thinking about when the intention of a law and the specific wording of a law collide - this has particularly interested me since I read a book called "What About Law" by a number of Cambridge lecturers, and it discussed two cases where the same laws (against harming another person) conflicted as a result of intent. I'm tempted to develop a couple of examples where currently there is some dispute, as a result of intent, including Euthanasia laws - perhaps developing a few case studies?
Third, I'm shamelessly researching the people who may one day be my lecturers (if I'm lucky enough to get the grades) and am going to read into the subjects that they specialise in to see what if there's anything that really gets me interested. In an ideal world, I'd have loved to have done something in Constitutional Law, having studied it in Politics - but because I've looked at it in one of my courses, I'm not allowed to complete my project on it. I really enjoy looking at the powers of the Judiciary and the fluctuating powers that the Government has as a result of laws passed involving the UK's uncodified and un-entrenched constitution, and I'd have loved to have had a look into the changing nature of the constitution.
Speaking of, as I haven't out-right studied it in Politics beyond the fleeting mention as an example, do you think I'd be allowed to look into the implications of a British Bill of Rights on the judiciary, and the success of the Human Rights Act previous to this? Maybe, maybe not, but I'll ask when I go back to school...
Ciao! Comments and suggestions would be much appreciated!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)