What does direct intent vs indirect intent mean? What is the difference between them?

Direct intentionality: The mental attitude of knowing that one's actions will have a result that is harmful to society and hoping that such a result will occur. The so-called hope that a harmful result will occur is manifested in the actor's active pursuit of such a result, taking it as the goal of his own behavior, and taking positive actions to strive for this goal.

Indirect intentionality: the mental attitude of knowing that one's actions may have harmful consequences to society, and allowing such harmful consequences to occur. The so-called laissez-faire approach to the occurrence of harmful results means to let nature occur, condone the occurrence of harmful results, and not to actively pursue the occurrence of harmful results, but not to try to avoid them.

In real life, intentional crimes are mostly direct intentional crimes.

The difference between the two:

1) The cognitive factors are different, direct intent includes two situations: knowing that it is possible and knowing that it is inevitable, and indirect intention only has one circumstance of knowing that it is possible;

2) The volitional factor for the occurrence of harmful results is significantly different. Indirect intention is to let the results happen, that is, to let them go, not to care, tolerate and agree to the occurrence of harmful results; The volitional element of direct intent is the desire for the outcome to happen or the fact that it is allowed to happen knowing that it will happen.

3) whether a specific harmful result occurs or not, and the meaning of the conviction of the two kinds of intent and the act under their control is also different;

4) The subjective malignancy of direct intent is greater than that of indirect intent.

Legal Analysis: Indirect intent is a type of criminal intent, that is, the state of mind that knows that one's behavior may have a result that is harmful to society, and allows such a result to occur.

The difference between direct intent and indirect intent is as follows: (1) The cognitive factors are different, direct intent includes two situations: knowing that it is possible and knowing that it is inevitable, and indirect intention only has a kind of emotional laughter when it is knowingly possible. 2) The volitional factor for the occurrence of harmful results is significantly different.

Indirect slag is deliberately to let the results happen, that is, to let them go, not to care, to tolerate and agree to the occurrence of harmful results; The volitional element of direct intent is the desire for the outcome to happen or the fact that it is allowed to happen knowing that it will happen. (3) Whether or not a specific harmful result occurs is of different significance to the conviction of the two kinds of intent and the acts under their control. 4) The subjective malignancy of direct intent is greater than that of indirect intent.

Legal basis: Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 14: Intentional crimes are committed intentionally where one clearly knows that one's conduct will have consequences that are harmful to society, and hopes or allows such consequences to occur, thus constituting a crime.

Those who commit intentional crimes shall bear criminal responsibility.

Article 15: Crimes of negligence are crimes where one should foresee that one's conduct might have consequences that endanger society, but did not foresee it because of negligence, or had foreseen it and was credulous enough to believe that it could have been avoided, resulting in such a result.

Intentional offenses include both direct and indirect intent. Direct intent refers to the state of mind in which the perpetrator clearly knows that his or her actions will have a result that is harmful to society, and hopes that this kind of conversation will occur. A type of criminal intent.

Indirect intentional pretense is a type of criminal intent, that is, the state of mind that knows that one's behavior may have a result that is harmful to society, and allows such a result to occur.

[Legal basis].Article 14 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China.

Knowing that one's conduct will have a result that is harmful to society, and hoping or allowing such a result to occur, thus constituting a crime by the department inspector, is an intentional crime.

Those who commit intentional crimes shall bear criminal responsibility.

1. In terms of cognitive factors, there is a difference in the degree of knowledge between the two, and direct intention can be both knowing that the harmful result will inevitably occur or that it may occur; Indirect intent, on the other hand, is only knowing that the harmful result is likely to occur;

2. From the perspective of volitional factors, the psychological attitudes of the two are obviously different towards the occurrence of harmful results, and direct intentional hope is to actively pursue the occurrence of harmful results. Under this kind of psychological control, the perpetrator will find ways to overcome difficulties, create conditions, remove obstacles, and actively and tenaciously achieve the goal of the crime, resulting in the result of the crime. Indirect deliberate attitude towards the occurrence of harmful results is not a hopeful mental attitude, but a laissez-faire mental attitude.

Under the laissez-faire mentality, the perpetrator will not find ways to remove obstacles to actively pursue the occurrence of criminal outcomes or to prevent the occurrence of criminal outcomes. The difference in volitional factors is the key to the difference between the two deliberate ones;

3. The degree of harm to society is unbalanced, because direct intent is subjectively intended to endanger society, the subjective malice of the actor is greater, and the degree of social harm is generally more serious than indirect intention; Indirect intent is the result of repentance and repentance to endanger society, and the subjective malice of the perpetrator is relatively small, and the degree of social harm is generally relatively lighter than direct intention.

4. Whether or not a specific harmful result occurs has different meanings for the criminalization of these two types of intent and the acts under their control.

According to the principle of conviction of the unity of subjectivity and objectivity, as long as the perpetrator subjectively has the direct intent to commit the crime and objectively has the corresponding act, it constitutes a specific intentional crime, and whether or not the harmful result occurs does not affect the conviction, but is only a sign of distinction between completed and attempted crimes in those crimes where the result is the element of completion.

Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 14: [Intentional Crimes] Intentional crimes are intentional where one clearly knows that one's conduct will have a result that is harmful to society, and hopes or allows such a result to occur, thus constituting a crime.

Those who commit intentional crimes shall bear criminal responsibility.

Article 14 of the Criminal Law stipulates the content of criminal intent. This article will analyze a series of related contents such as criminal crimes, joint crime determination, and criminal punishment for intentional crimes in China's judicial practice. Article 14 of the Criminal Law stipulates the content of criminal intent.

The intrinsic appearance or structure of criminal intent should be grasped from two aspects: one is the cognitive factor - whether the perpetrator knows and understands his harmful behavior and its consequences, and the other is the volitional factor - what is the actor's attitude towards the harmful social consequences. Criminal intent is distinguished from direct intent and indirect intent.

Among them, direct intent is a prerequisite for the existence of criminal preparation, criminal attempt, and suspension of crime as stipulated in Article 22 and Article 24, and other forms of crime (including indirect intent) do not have the problem of these unfinished criminal forms. The problem with indirect intent lies primarily in its distinction from overconfident negligence. Clarity on the distinction between direct and indirect intent is key to mastering this article.

The difference between the two is that, in terms of cognitive factors, although they both have knowledge of the harmful results caused by their behaviors, the degree of understanding is different: direct intent is generally the result that the actor clearly knows that his or her behavior will inevitably cause harmful results, but it can also be the result of knowing that his behavior may cause harm to society; Indirect intent, on the other hand, can only be when the perpetrator is aware that his or her conduct may have harmful consequences.

In terms of volitional factors, that is, the psychological attitudes of the two towards the occurrence of harmful results, they are obviously different: direct intention is to hope that is, to actively pursue the occurrence of harmful results, while indirect intention has a laissez-faire mental attitude towards the occurrence of harmful results, that is, indifferent and resigned. The conviction of these two types of harmful acts under the control of the intention is different for the occurrence or non-occurrence of a particular outcome

In the case of direct intent, the occurrence or non-occurrence of a specific result prescribed by law is a sign of completion, while in the case of indirect intent, it is an indication of the establishment of an offence or the constitution of an offence. If the same act is to shoot another person: if it is done with direct intent, whether or not it causes the death or injury of another person, it constitutes the crime of intentional homicide (except that it is an attempt to kill an intentional homicide in the absence of death); If it is an indirect intention of laissez-faire, the qualitative issue should be analyzed in detail:

If he hits another person and causes death, he is guilty of intentional homicide; The offence of intentional injury may be established if the blow does not result in death but merely injury, and the offence is not committed if it is not hit.

Article 14 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China provides that a person who clearly knows that his or her conduct will have a result harmful to society, and hopes or allows such a result to occur, and thus constitutes a crime, is an intentional crime."