What is meant by intent?

 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 :)