Talk:Transferred intent

Material for discussion

"It is interesting to compare the principle underlying the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2004 in the United States which applies only to offences over which the U.S. government has jurisdiction, namely crimes committed on Federal properties, against certain Federal officials and employees, and by members of the military, but treats the foetus as a separate person for the purposes of all levels of assault including murder and attempted murder. By creating a specific offence to cover the case, the Congress obviated the question of transferred intent by substituting a strict liability standard: if one assaults a woman, one is strictly liable for the consequences to any unborn child she may be carrying. Intent, and even knowledge of the pregnancy, is irrelevant."

I am not convinced that a simple assertion of a strict liability standard is acceptable. There must be a mens rea element for the attack upon the mother. The section then provides that if the attacker is aware of the pregancy and intends to injure the foetus, that will be treated as a murder or attempted murder in the usual way. Thus, all the section does is to confirm the usual principle that the mens rea from the initial assault is transferred to the foetus without having to prove actual knowledge or intent with respect to the child. I think it is easier to list the terms of the section rather than engage in a more detailed evaluation. But, if you wish, I am happy to expand your wording to serve the purpose. David91 03:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The really cool part of the law is its total flexibility to local and individual judicial opinion. Note that harm is not necessarily limited to threat or intent to cause serious bodily harm...anything illegal or of potential civil tort interest is potentially allowed as legal harm. Nor does any time limit exist. Nor do you have to be direct participant in final events. Your past actions merely need to influence the eventual course of events. It is possible to escalate letting your dog poop on someone else's lawn to first degree murder if that insane neighbor goes berserk and ends up killing a child during his efforts to get back at you. Its all a matter of how unpopular you are with the local community and especially law enforcement.

Fortunately most courts with this authority are outside local popular influence and most judges are pretty strict in the application of this law. And when stretched this law has often been used in very Al Capone circumstances. But it also ripe for other less desirable lynch mob behavior within the due process structure.

I also note that this principle is most frequently used to "spin doctor" the accidental results of law enforcement actions -- often were police judgement was highly questionable.

69.23.121.19 (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Article introduction

I changed "121 days" to "4 months", because the explicit stating of 121 days, while (possibly, but unsourced) accurate, is prejudicial to the mindset of the reader. 4 months is a vastly short time in human life, while 121 is a big number, whether or not 'days' is beside it. The statement should be verified and justified for being represented in days, rather than months, or remain as the approximate month definition.

Doctrine Unecessary

The doctrine is unecessary to achieve the purpose of holding the criminal or tortfeasor responsible for his wrongful acts. For example, murder is the ulawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. One form of malice is the intent to kill. That is a person would be guilty of common law murder if he intended to kill and did kill another person. It is really of no consequence that he intend to kill a particular person and managed to kill somone else - the mental element - that he intends to kill another person - has been satisfied.--Jgard5000 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)jgard5000

Yes, but this principle makes clear that it doesn't matter if your intent was to kill John and you kill Jill instead. That's the point. 173.160.189.21 (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A small issue

Transferred intent also applies to statements made where one or many individuals would act.

IE: An individual places a causant to murder (incitement to War), the individual itself wanting to murder, but not wishing to be the defacto individual whom pulls the trigger themselves.

IE: A statement made accorded a form of ´homebrew´ medical recipe that is known by the individual to be causant of damages, in conjunction with none knowlegability of the individual onto whom that is placed, resulting in a form of transferred intent.

The media itself falls foul onto this, and so does many a politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.204.150 (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)