Willful Intent

For example, willfully driving in a reckless manner means that the person who is driving recklessly intends to do so, despite knowing that what he is doing is dangerous and illegal, and that there may be consequences for his actions. To explore this concept, consider the following willfully definition. This is because he did not set out with the intent to commit a wrongdoing. It can be easy to confuse motive with intent.

Intent is what the courts analyze when determining whether an action was performed willfully. Consider the following example of willfully disobeying the law. Upon receiving a bill from the IRS, John chooses not to pay his taxes. If John is not paying his taxes because he truly believes himself to be exempt when, in fact, he is not, then he is acting in good faith even though his belief is incorrect.

If, however, John is certain that he is not exempt and chooses not to pay his taxes anyway, then he is showing a willful disregard for the law and its consequences. When someone commits a willful violation in the workplace, he is committing the worst violation he can commit under the laws administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration OSHA. A willful violation occurs when an employer is aware of a hazardous situation in its workplace, yet does nothing to fix the problem.

What is Willfully

If an employer is issued repeated citations regarding the same or similar situations, these citations can be used as evidence of his willful violation. It is not necessary to prove that the employer acted with an evil intent for the violation to be deemed willful. It is enough to show that the violation was deliberate or intentional, as opposed to being accidental or negligent.

The most serious level of culpability , justifying the most serious levels of punishment , is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind a "subjective" test. A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously perhaps because they are less likely to get caught , whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intent can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. The policy issue for those who administer the criminal justice system is that, when planning their actions, people may be aware of many probable and possible consequences.

Obviously, all of these consequences could be prevented through the simple expedient either of ceasing the given activity or of taking action rather than refraining from action. So the decision to continue with the current plan means that all the foreseen consequences are to some extent intentional , i. But, is the test of culpability based on purely a subjective measure of what is in a person's mind, or does a court measure the degree of fault by using objective tools?

For example, suppose that A, a jealous wife, discovers that her husband is having a sexual affair with B. Wishing only to drive B away from the neighbourhood, she goes to B's house one night, pours petrol on and sets fire to the front door. B dies in the resulting fire.

A is shocked and horrified. It did not occur to her that B might be physically in danger and there was no conscious plan in her mind to injure B when the fire began. But when A's behaviour is analysed, B's death must be intentional. If A had genuinely wished to avoid any possibility of injury to B, she would not have started the fire. Or, if verbally warning B to leave was not an option, she should have waited until B was seen to leave the house before starting the fire. As it was, she waited until night when it was more likely that B would be at home and there would be fewer people around to raise the alarm.

Whereas intent would be less if A had set fire to the house during the day after ringing the doorbell to check no one was home and then immediately ringing the fire brigade to report the fire.

• You are here?
• The Genius;
• Navigation menu;

On a purely subjective basis, A intended to render B's house uninhabitable, so a reasonably substantial fire was required. The reasonable person would have foreseen a probability that people would be exposed to the risk of injury. Anyone in the house, neighbours, people passing by, and members of the fire service would all be in danger.

The court therefore assesses the degree of probability that B or any other person might be in the house at that time of the night. The more certain the reasonable person would have been, the more justifiable it is to impute sufficient desire to convert what would otherwise only have been recklessness into intent to constitute the offence of murder.

Search The Library's Lexicon

But if the degree of probability is lower, the court finds only recklessness proved. Some states once had a rule that a death that occurred during commission of a felony automatically imputed sufficient mens rea for murder. Clearfield , F. Proof that the defendant acted with reckless disregard or reckless indifference may therefore satisfy the knowledge requirement, when the defendant makes a false material statement and consciously avoids learning the facts or intends to deceive the government. Schaffer , F. The term "willfully" means no more than that the forbidden act was done deliberately and with knowledge, and does not require proof of evil intent.

United States , F.

1. Buyer Beware: Finding Truth in the Marketplace of Ideas.
2. In His Hour.
3. Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume ... ASHE Higher Education Report Series (AEHE)).

An act is done "willfully" if done voluntarily and intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids. There is no requirement that the government show evil intent on the part of a defendant in order to prove that the act was done "willfully. Gregg , F.

Sullivan , 7 F.