Understanding intent in genocide
Gerard Gill’s statement: “intent being determined by multiple statements from officials” is legal fantasy. Intent is established by acts or omissions, not by words.
If a reasonable person would understand that there was a strongly probable, indeed, near certain consequence of an act or omission, that establishes intent. She who deliberately puts death cap mushrooms in the beef Wellington commits murder, (allegedly). The act proves intent.
If a reasonable person would understand that a near certain consequence of Israel’s obliteration of Gaza, cutting off water, food, medical supplies, the use of starvation as a means of warfare, the destruction of the entire health care system, rendering Gaza an uninhabitable, toxic wasteland, would inevitably lead to the destruction of the Palestinian People — in part — that establishes intent. No words are necessary.
It would be oh so nice if supposedly educated people got themselves tossed in the nick for 10 minutes, so the barely literate boys inside could explain mens rea to them. It would alleviate much of my frustration with the media and its wilful ignorance of basic elements of criminal law.
Just remember, it’s about acts, not about words. Acts establish intent.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
