The subjective aspect of the offence expresses the internal relationship of the perpetrator to its commission. It is therefore one of the basic elements of the offence. The perpetrator may act either intentionally or recklessly, which plays a major role in determining what crime he has committed and how severe the punishment he may receive for it. In this article, we will look at both types in detail and explain everything in simple terms using examples.
The subjective aspect of a crime expresses the internal psychological state and motivation of the offender in committing the crime. Its main objective is to understand how the offender perceived and evaluated his or her actions at the time of the crime.
The subjective aspect is therefore essential to distinguish between different types of crime. For example, murder and manslaughter may have similar objective consequences but differences in the subjective aspect. In murder, there is an intention to murder, whereas manslaughter is caused by, for example, confusion or relief. The resulting punishment is then fundamentally different. For murder, the penalties range from 8-20 years’ imprisonment or even an exceptional sentence may be imposed, whereas for manslaughter it is 3-15 years.
Are you accused of a crime?
You will only succeed in court if your defence is bulletproof. We will conduct a careful analysis of the case and propose a course of action for the defence in a criminal trial in which we will vigorously enforce your rights.
The subjective aspect of the offence is one of the four essential elements that must be present for it to be a criminal offence. The other elements of the offence include:
The subjective aspect also consists of several different features. The main feature that must be present for a person to be criminally responsible is culpability.
Culpability is an essential element that must be present for the offender’s conduct to be considered a crime. It is based on the intent or negligence of the perpetrator
Intention is defined by the Criminal Code as a situation where the perpetrator intended to violate or endanger an interest protected by law or knew that by his conduct he could cause such a violation or endangerment and was aware of it. According to this definition, there are two types of intent:
In the case of direct intent, the perpetrator intended to act in a particular way, which means that he or she had the intention to achieve a certain result, which is defined as a criminal offence.
Example: Charles intends to commit robbery. When he enters the bank, he has a gun and explicitly demands that the teller give him money. His intent is to directly and knowingly commit the crime of robbery by using or threatening violence to open the teller’s register and steal the money. He therefore committed the offence with direct intent.
Tip: What is a crime and how do we divide crimes? Find out in the next article.
In the case of indirect intent, the perpetrator knew or acquiesced in the fact that his or her conduct may cause a violation or endangerment of a protected interest under the criminal law. Thus, his aim was not to directly endanger the protected interest, but he knew that this could happen.
Example: Mirek throws a firecracker into a crowd without intending to injure anyone. However, he was aware that such an action could cause a health hazard to people in the vicinity of the firecracker explosion. Therefore, Mirek is aware of the possibility that his action may result in a criminal offence of bodily harm. The firecracker actually explodes under the foot of a person in the crowd and blows off his toe, causing a lifelong limp. Mirek therefore committed the offence with indirect intent.
Negligence is the second form of culpability. In a negligence case, the actor does not act with the intent to commit the crime, but neglects a duty or care that he or she should have exercised given the circumstances and the standards set by law. Negligence is often the result of a lack of discretion or carelessness in carrying out activities that have the potential to cause harm or endanger protected interests. There are two types of negligence:
This is a situation in which the perpetrator knew that his or her actions could violate or endanger a legally protected interest, but relied without reasonable grounds on the fact that he or she would not cause such a violation or endangerment.
Example: a construction supervisor is aware that safety precautions are being neglected during construction that could endanger the safety of workers. Even though he knows he should intervene and require the deficiencies to be corrected, he lets things go and relies on nothing happening. One day, however, a section of the structure falls on a worker, killing him. The construction supervisor thus commits a knowingly negligent criminal act.
This is a situation in which the perpetrator did not know that his actions could cause a violation or endangerment of an interest protected by law, although he should and could have known this given the circumstances and his personal circumstances.
Example: a chemist works with chemicals that are dangerous and may cause an explosion. Given his training, he should have been aware that improper handling of these substances could result in serious harm or endangerment of life. However, he is not aware of this and acts carelessly, causing an explosion and serious injury to a colleague. The chemist is therefore guilty of reckless criminal negligence.
Tip: When is an act of negligence criminal? Read our article.
Gross negligence is a specific type of negligence. This is committed by the perpetrator when his attitude towards the requirement of due care shows his obvious recklessness towards the interests protected by the criminal law.
Example: the owner of a chemical plant decides to pour hazardous chemical waste into a nearby stream instead of disposing of it properly. This pollution results in the poisoning and hospitalization of twenty people who bathed in the contaminated water. The owner of the plant had no intention of harming anyone, yet acted with reckless disregard for the environment and human safety. He was therefore grossly negligent.
In addition to the basic condition of culpability, there are other elements of the subjective aspect of the offence:
Motive is the reason that led the perpetrator to commit the crime. The motive may be diverse and reflects the psychological, social or personal factors that prompted the perpetrator to act in the first place. Motive plays a role in some cases in determining the level of punishment. For example, the law refers to a particularly reprehensible motive as one of the aggravating circumstances.
Example: Peter has long held racist attitudes towards Roma and often expresses hatred towards them. One evening, a drunken Peter comes out of a pub and meets a young Roma boy in the street, who is returning home from school. Petr starts shouting racist slurs at the boy and threatens him with physical violence. As a result of his anger and hatred, Peter begins to attack the boy and eventually stabs him in the stomach with a knife, causing fatal injuries. The motive for committing this crime is therefore hatred towards the Roma minority.
Intent represents the end result that the perpetrator wanted to achieve. In some offences, the aim may play an important role in determining the level of punishment or may be one of the essential elements of the offence. It is important, for example, in the case of the offence of hostage-taking, where it is part of the very definition: “Hostage-taking is committed by one who takes a hostage and threatens to kill him or to cause him bodily harm or other serious injury, with the aim of compelling another to do, omit or suffer something.”
Example: John is facing financial difficulties and is looking for a way to raise money. He therefore decides to blackmail his former business partner Maria, who is not short of money. Jan first threatens to disclose compromising information about Maria’s personal life unless she sends 100,000 crowns to his account within 24 hours. Marie fears for her reputation and sends the money to Jan. Thus, the key element in this case is John’s intention (goal), which was to force Marie to provide the money through blackmail.
The subjective aspect of the crime reflects the intrinsic motivation and mental state of the perpetrator when committing the crime. This aspect is key to distinguishing between different types of crimes, such as murder and manslaughter, which may be objectively similar but differ in their view of culpability. Culpability can be either intentional or negligent. The level of penalties is then determined on that basis.
Were you charged and prosecuted? The stakes are really high and it doesn’t pay to go through the criminal process without consulting an attorney.
Ondřej is the attorney who came up with the idea of providing legal services online. He's been earning his living through legal services for more than 10 years. He especially likes to help clients who may have given up hope in solving their legal issues at work, for example with real estate transfers or copyright licenses.
In person and online. Just choose the appropriate service or opt for an independent consultation when you are unsure.
