Talk:Transferred intent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)