In criminal law, there is a sharp distinction between intent and motive. But this distinction is often neglected. Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result, whereas intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Motive is often not an element of a crime, while intent normally is. The question of motive then suggests an inquiry into the state of mind of a person and his thoughts (which is difficult, if not impossible, to conclusively determine), while intent can be established based on a person’s manifest, external actions, e.g., intent to kill is established when a person inflicts mortal wounds on a person. By distinguishing between intent and motive, the chances of legislating “thought-crimes” are avoided since the commonly required element of criminal intent will only be manifested once there are overt acts (or omissions) by an accused. It is a principle in criminal law that one is punished for one’s actions, not for what one thinks.

This post was originally written for a class in Information Technology Law when I was an LLM student at the University of Edinburgh.