已解决问题
intend 和 intent 的区别是什么
&老师 intend 和intent 的区别是什么&
提问时间： 14:18:25提问者：
同学你好，主要是词性不同，intend是动词，意思是打算想要做什么。intent作为名词意为意图目的，作为形容词意思是专心的，急切的。希望答案对你有所帮助，祝你学习愉快！ 欢迎登陆新东方在线欢迎到新东方在线论坛感谢您对新东方在线的支持和信任如您的问题未能得到妥善解决或有其他问题请访问：或联系售后客服：400 676 2300
回答时间： 15:51:09
[知识堂达人]
考研直通车
英语四六级
商务英语/BEC
口语风暴课程
青春期问题
娱乐八卦吐槽
旗下成员公司 全国客服专线：400-676-3300 上海客服专线：021- 购卡咨询(上海)：021-Copyright (C)
Inc. All rights reserved. 新东方在线 版权所有
京公安备110-1081940From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article has multiple issues. Please help
or discuss these issues on the . ()
This article may be
to readers. Please help us . There might be a discussion about this on . (January 2008) ()
This article needs additional citations for . Please help
by . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2009) ()
against property
against justice
Creation of
(including , when )
Other common-law areas
An attempt to commit a
occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime, usually considered to be of the same or lesser gravity as the particular crime that never ended up happening.:669–671 Attempt is a type of , a crime that is not fully developed. The crime of attempt has two elements,
and some conduct toward completion of the crime.
One group of theories in
is that attempt to commit an act occurs when a person comes dangerously close to carrying out a criminal act, and intends to commit the act, but does not in fact commit it. The person may have carried out all the necessary steps (or thought they had) but still failed, or the attempt may have been abandoned or prevented at a late stage. The attempt must have gone beyond mere planning or , and is distinct from other
to commit a crime or
of a crime. There are many specific crimes of attempt, such as , which may vary by . Punishment is often less severe than would be the case if the attempted crime had been carried out. Abandonment of the attempt may constitute a not guilty defence, depending partly on the extent to which the attempt was abandoned freely and voluntarily. Early
did the law of attempt was not recognised by common law until the case of b.
in 1784.:669
The essence of the crime of attempt in legal terms is that the
has failed to commit the
term for the "guilty act") of the full offense, but has the direct and
to commit that full offense. The normal rule for establishing criminal liability is to prove an actus reus accompanied by a
("guilty mind") at the relevant time (see
offenses as the exception to the rule).
Whether the actus reus of an attempt has occurred is a question of fact for the
to decide after having heard the 's
regarding the law. The
precedent is used to distinguish between acts that were merely preparatory and those sufficiently proximate or connected to the crime. However, sometimes it is hard to draw the line between those acts which were merely preparatory, and those that went and executing a plan, will always go through a series of steps to arrive at the intended conclusion. Some aspects of the execution of the act will be too remote or removed from the full offense. Examples are watching the intended victim over a period of time to establish the routines and traveling to a store to buy necessary tools and equipment. But the closer to the reality of committing the offense the potential wrongdoer moves, the greater the social danger they become. This is a critical issue for the
who need to know when they can intervene to avert the threatened harm by
the person. This is a difficult policy area. On the one hand, the state wishes to be able to protect its citizens from harm. This requires an arrest at the earliest possible time. But, most states recognise a principle of individual
that only those people who actually choose to break the law should be arrested. Since the potential wrongdoer could change their mind at any point before the crime is committed, the state should wait until the last possible minute to ensure that the intention is going to be realized.
England and Wales
In , an attempt is defined as 'doing an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence' according to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. "The test of proximity was that the defendant must have ...crossed the rubicon, burnt his boats, or reached a point of no return". So the defendant has reached that part of the series of acts, which if not interrupted, frustrated, or , would inevitably result in the commission of the intended offence. But section 1(1) of the
defines the actus reus as that is "...more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence," that allowed liability to attach slightly earlier in the sequence of acts. Subsequent
have abandoned the more formal common law last step test, leaving it to the jury to decide. A defendant who changes their mind after the act is sufficiently proximate, is still guilty of an attempt although the change of heart could be reflected in the .
However, there is some uncertainty as to what exactly 'more than merely preparatory' means. It is upon the discretion of the judges and the jury to decide. Major criticism was attracted after the judgement in R v Geddes, where the court acquitted the defendant who was trying to kidnap a young boy, stating that he had not gone far enough, and his acts were 'merely preparatory'.
New York State
law, the element of actus reus is that the person engages in conduct that "...tends to effect the commission of such crime." The test this requires either:
An action that reveals a , that is, , or "the thing speaks for itself," or
The person has dangerous proximity, or is "dangerously near and close to the accomplishment of the crime."
Model Penal Code
Under the , for a defendant to be convicted of attempt requires that they perform a "substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in [the defendant']s commission of the crime" (MPC 5.01(1)(c)).
See , , , ,
There is a distinction between "" and "". Factual impossibility is rarely a defense. A standard policing strategy is the use of an
to offer temptation to suspected criminals. In some countries,
resulting from
is inadmissible. Nevertheless, undercover police officers do sell real or fake contraband such as illegal drugs or guns, as a means of exposing criminal activity. Some consider the use of fake material as a slightly safer way to catch criminals, rather than risk the real contraband falling into the wrong hands. But if there is no actual contraband and the actus reus of the full offense is "possession" of prohibited materials, there can be no criminal possession. Can there be an attempt to possess when, in the circumstances, it was ? The answer is that mistakes of fact are almost never a defense, as in , and , for example.
England and Wales
Section 1(2) of the
applies the Act even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible so long as, under section 1(3), the defendant believes that he is about to break the law and intends to commit the relevant full offence. This reverses the ' decision in Haughton v Smith, which had held it to be a good defence if the intended crime was factually or legally incapable of fulfillment. This change in the law avoids any problem in an early arrest because, once in police custody, it is extraordinarily difficult to commit the full offence. Further, both the incompetent criminal who fails because the means adopted are inadequate (e.g. intends to poison a victim but the amount administered is harmless, or makes a false statement that does not deceive the intended victim) and the unlucky thief who find the pocket or purse empty, can now be convicted.
is the essence of attempt. Only a direct and specific intent will support a conviction.
is not a sufficient mens rea. That means that the defendant must have decided to bring about, so far as lay within their powers, the commission of the full offense. However,
applies so that if Alice intends to murder Bob with a gun, but the shot accidentally misses and kills Carol, then Alice is guilty of the murder of Carol and the attempted murder of Bob. Alternatively, if Alice intends merely to frighten Bob, and that same shot intentionally misses Bob but accidentally kills Carol, Alice may be guilty of assaulting Bob (among other things), but not attempted murder, unless Alice intended that such fright would kill Bob. Whether Alice would be guilty of murdering Carol would depend on the specific circumstances and what Alice foresaw. The punishment for an attempt is often tied to that of the intended offense (e.g., half the fine, or half the prison time).
In many states in the United States, it is impossible, as a matter of law, to attempt to commit a crime whose underlying mens rea is only recklessness. For example, in , the defendant Lyerla randomly shot into a truck three times after being goaded by the driver of the truck. One shot killed the driver and the others did not hit the driver or either of two passengers. The South Dakota Supreme Court found that although Lyerla was guilty of reckless
of the driver, he could not be guilty of recklessly attempting to murder the passengers, because attempt requires a higher level of intent than recklessness.
Under English law, R v Walker and Hayles (1990) 90 Cr. App. R. 226 deals with the issue of the power of a court to
intention based on foresight. The defendants threw their victim from a third floor balcony and were charged with attempted murder. The judge directed the jury that they could infer intention if there was a high degree of probability that the victim would be killed and if the defendants knew "quite well that in doing that there was a high degree of probability" that the victim would be killed. The Court of Appeal did not accept that the reference to "very high degree of probability" was a misdirection, but Lloyd LJ. stated that in the rare cases where an expanded direction is required to include foresight, courts should use virtual certainty as the test, rather than high probability (see also R v Woollin [1998] 3 WLR 382 (HL)).
Recklessness will sometimes suffice for 'circumstances' of the crime. To be liable for attempted rape a defendant need not actually intend to have non-consensual intercourse, mere recklessness towards the lack of consent is enough (R v Khan). Likewise with attempted aggravated arson, recklessness towards loss of life will suffice (A-G's Reference #3 1992).
Section 5.01 defines criminal attempt to commit a crime as occurring when a defendant acts with the culpability required to commit that crime, and either
engages in conduct that would be a commission of the crime if the attendant circumstances were as defendant believed them to be, or
(2) purposely acts (or omits to act) with purpose of causing (or belief that the act will cause) a result that is an element of the crime and that no further act by defendant is needed, or
(3) purposely acts (or omits to act) when that act (or omission) constitutes a substantial step in a planned course of conduct that ends in her commission of the crime, if attendant circumstances were as she believed them to be.
The "purpose" (as in situation 1) or "belief" (as in situation 2) required for an attempt do not necessarily encompass the attendant circumstances of the crime. Instead, the defendant must possess as to the attendant circumstances the degree of culpability required to commit the target offense, as specified in the elements of that offense.
Model Penal Code §5.05 on
criminal attempt says, "Except as otherwise provided, attempt... [is a crime] of the same grade and degree as the most serious offense that is attempted... An attempt... to commit a [capital crime or a]
It is not possible to attempt the other
of conspiracy, or aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring an offense because the defendant would be too remote from the full offense. Similarly, there can be no attempt where the mens rea for the full offense is
since, by definition, there is insufficient intention to commit the full offense. Hence, there can be no charge of attempted involuntary manslaughter. It may, however, be possible to prove an attempted
since all the preparatory steps are presumably commissive in building up to the situation in which the defendant will fail to act.
Abandonment can also be a defense to either element (mens rea or actus reus) of attempt, if the
"walks away" from the crime.
However, many jurisdictions do not recognize abandonment. Courts that do recognize this defense generally apply it only where the defendant completely and voluntarily renounces any criminal purpose (Understanding Criminal Law, J. Dressler, 2006). However, the abandonment is not complete and voluntary where the defendant desists from criminal efforts due to unexpected resistance (e.g., from victims), the discovery of the absence of an instrumentality needed for the completion of the offense, or other circumstances that increase the probability of arrest, or decrease the probability of successful completion of the crime (e.g. proximate arrival of police). Abandonment is also invalid where the defendant simply postpones the criminal plan until another time.
Under the , the defendant is not guilty of an attempt if they (1) abandon the effort to commit the crime or prevent the crime from being committed, and (2) their behavior manifests a complete and voluntary renunciation of the criminal purpose (MPC § 5.01(4)). However, the renunciation not complete if motivated in whole or part by one of the following:
They postpone the criminal conduct to a more advantageous time, or to transfer the criminal effort to another but similar objective or victim.
They are merely reacting to circumstances that increase the probability of detection or apprehension.
They are reacting to a change in circumstances that makes the crime harder to commit.
Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, ; , , ,  ,
Defining Attempts: Mandujano's Error, Duke University, Michael R. Fishman,
Lippman's Contemporary Criminal Law, Student Study Site, Copyright 2008 SAGE.
"Herring: Criminal Law"
DPP v Stonehouse [1977] 2 All ER 909 per Lord Diplock.
Stephen's Digest of the Criminal Law.
See R v Jones (KH) [1990] 1 WLR 1057.
section 110.00, which may be found at .
People v. Acosta (N.Y. Court of Appeals 1993).
Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, 7th ed. 2012, Wolters Kluwer Law & B John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder,  
: Hidden categories:动词 知识讲解 intend的相关用法（北京四中网校－〉名师答疑－〉高一－〉英语）　
　　欢迎您！
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
　　动词 知识讲解 intend的相关用法
be intended to do & & & & & & & be intended for & & & & & & & & & & &intened to do的区别
　　be&intended&to扫二维码下载作业帮
3亿+用户的选择
下载作业帮安装包
扫二维码下载作业帮
3亿+用户的选择
intend和tend的区别
作业帮用户
扫二维码下载作业帮
3亿+用户的选择
一般是通过词组来辨析:intend to "打算做某事";tend to "趋势".
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
intend 打算tend 趋势,抚育
扫描下载二维码