Crimes involving conspiracy require proving specific intent. Specific intent means the defendant intended for a prohibited result to occur beyond just committing the illegal act. To prove conspiracy, the prosecution must show the defendant intended to agree with others to commit an illegal act, and intended for the planned illegal act to actually take place. General intent alone is not enough for conspiracy charges.

1. 150 words agree or dis agree to each question
Q1.
Good evening class,
Courts have defined specific intent as the subjective desire or
knowledge that the prohibited result will occur (People v.
Owens, 1983). For intent to be present, it must be proved that
the thought to conduct the act was present. The prosecution
must be able to prove that the defendant had intent to achieve a
specific goal in addition to the intent to commit the illegal act.
Examples of the types of specific intent crimes are burglary,
conspiracy, forgery, embezzlement and larceny. Because intent
mainly refers to the state of mind, it is hard to prove with direct
evidence and is usually inferred from the facts of the case.
Evidence of intent is admissible to prove a specific-intent
crime.
Which crimes might be easier to prove intent than others?
General intent crimes are easier to prove and can also result in a
less severe punishment. A basic definition of general intent is
the intent to perform the criminal actor actus reus (People v.
Mcdaniel,1979). If the defendant acts intentionally but without
the additional desire to bring about a certain result, or do
anything other than the criminal act itself, the defendant has
acted with general intent.
What kinds of proof might be used for certain crimes than
others? There are three standards of proof which are proof
beyond a reasonable doubt, preponderance of the evidence and
clear and convincing evidence. Preponderance of the evidence is
the lowest standard of proof. It is used primarily in civil
proceedings. This standard means that it is more likely than not

2. that the facts are as that which one of the parties claim. Clear
and convincing evidence is a step up from the preponderance.
This requires that the evidence show that it is highly probable
or probably certain that the thing alleged has occurred. Proof
beyond a reasonable doubt refers to the standard of proof in
criminal prosecutions. The prosecutor has the duty to convince
the jury by proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every
element of the crime before a jury should convict a defendant
(People v. Mcdaniel, 1979).
V/r
Bryan
People v. Mcdaniel, 597 p.2d 124 (1979), accessed february 14,
2011, http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=8266915507346002022&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as
_vis=1&oi=scholarr.
People v. Owens, 131 mich. App. 76, 345 n.w.2d 904 [1983],
accessed december 10, 2010, http://scholar.google.com/
scholar_case?case=4472828314482166952&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as
_vis=1&oi=scholarr.
Q2.
Proving intent can be challenging in criminal cases as in order
to prove intent you must attempt to prove what a person was
thinking and that the actions that the person took was for a
distinct desired result. Criminal intent is when a suspect
intends to do something wrong or something that is forbidden.
The problem with proving criminal intent, mens rea, is it
refers to the state of mind of an individual who makes a
decision and that results in a criminal act. When referring to
intent we use terms such as specific intent and general intent.

3. Specific intent, as it states, refers to when a suspect commits a
criminal act with the specific outcome or purpose. General
intent is when a suspect actions result a criminal act. Specific
intent is usually ajudicated much stricter then general intent
crimes because crimes with specific intent not only involve a
suspect committing a crime, but that suspects actions being
more deliberate and having a specific result or end-state.
Specific intent crimes usually have three elements which are
that the suspect intend to have bad results, that the suspect
intended to do something more than a commit a criminal act,
and that the suspect knew that their actions were illegal or
scienter. An example of a specific crime is maiming, maiming is
a crime inflicted with the intent to disfigure or scar a person.
If we look at a scenario where person A throws boiling hot
water in the face of person B, it can be assumed by a reasonable
person that the boiling hot water would scar person B's face
therefore person A may be convicted of maiming. However, if
person A was carrying a pot of boiling water and they were
accidentally bumped into by another person or slipped which
then resulted in the water burning person B's face, person A
may be found liable for civil damages, but not criminal as it was
an honest accident that a reasonable person could not have
foreseen. Some examples of crimes that may easier to prove
intent then others would be general intent and liability crimes as
the prosecution does not have to prove that the suspect intended
a desired result, but rather that the suspect's actions were a
crime. The prosecution is able to prove this through witness
statements and any evidence that may be acquired from the
crime scene. If we refer back to the crime of maiming if person
A tossed the boiling hot water in person B's face and caused a
scar they could be tried for maiming as a reasonable person can
infer that the actions would of resulted in a scar. However if
person A punched person B which then resulted in person B
falling back and spilling the boiling hot water on themselves a
prosecution would find an easier time proving the general intent
of battery vice the specific intent of maiming unless

4. the prosecution was able to prove through witness statements
that the actions were deliberate.
Q3.
Proving intent can be challenging. What kind of crimes require
specific intent and how difficult is that to prove?
For a refresher specific intent applies to an individual that is
getting ready to commit a criminal activity (LSTD302 |
LESSON THREE, 2020). This brings me back to the terrorism
attack, the Unabomber’s manifesto article that I was reading
that I think you will find interesting. The Unabomber’s
manifesto was a very interesting story that I had no idea about.
Basically, it is about Theodore J. Kaczynski. Ted Kaczynski
graduated from Harvard and received a Ph.D. in math at the
University of Michigan. Then, he pursed a teaching career at the
University of California at Berkeley and quitted two years later
(Editors, 2010). As you can see, this man is a very brilliant
person. So, with such knowledge why did he kill three people
and injure 23 (Farhi, 2015)? He did so by creating explosive
bombs and distributing it to different areas and different people
for 17 years without getting caught (Farhi, 2015). What is
interesting to me is that Ted Kaczynski sent a letter to the New
York Times and stated that he would stop the killing if they
printed 35,000 manifestos (Editors, 2010). This manifesto
against the “industrial-technological system” (Farhi, 2015).
Normally, you have terrorist or criminals that are involve in
such criminal activity ask for money or something that will
benefit themselves in the long run, but no Ted Kaczynski was a
different character. Instead, Ted had a problem with the
technology system for security and decided to take matters into
his own hands. Ted Kaczynski wrote out a manuscript on how to
solve this problem and he wanted it to be posted to the public
or have it manifestoed. After the FBI, reporters, CIA, and

5. General Attorneys were reviewing his demands because Ted,
mentioned to them that if they do not do it then more people
would be killed (Farhi, 2015). The FBI knew that he was not
lying, he’s been doing it for 17 years without getting caught so
the government knew he was a serious threat. After carefully
thinking it through they did manifestoed his manuscript.
Unabomber (as the FBI named him) made history for the future.
If it was not for his brother David Kaczynski, the FBI probably
would not have caught him. David recognized his brother
handwriting and knew from his past discussions with him and
his family that it had to be him (Farhi, 2015). So, he eventually
made up his mind and told the FBI. In this true event, I would
say that the intent was difficult to prove because they could not
understand why he did it until they caught him. If you haven’t
heard of it, it is a must-read article.
Which crimes might be easier to prove intent than others?
A homicide crime or bank robbery would be something that
might be easier to prove than the Unabomber example I gave.
What kinds of proof might be used for certain crimes than
others?
Depending on the crime itself will determine the proof. For
instance, if it was a homicide about someone’s body being
burned in the woods. After investigation, an officer might have
gotten intel that the individual bought a gun and fire starter kit.
Essentially, the evidence would match to the criminal intent.
Works Cited
LSTD302 | LESSON THREE. (2020). Criminal
Defenses.
APUS
.

6. Farhi, P. (2015, September 19). How publishing a 35,000-word
manifesto led to the Unabomber. Retrieved from The
Washington Post :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-
publishing-a-35000-word-manifesto-led-to-the-
unabomber/2015/09/18/e55229e0-5cac-11e5-9757-
e49273f05f65_story.html
Editors, H. (2010, February 09). Unabomber manifesto
published. Retrieved from History:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/unabomber-
manifesto-published
Q4 50 words
How do you prove intent for a crime involving a "conspiracy"?
Must there be specific intent or only general intent?