Criminal Intent and Negligence
Explanation
This section explains the concept of criminal intent and fault in the Lebanese Penal Code. Intent (l'intention) is the will to commit a crime as defined by the law. This means that the perpetrator directs their will towards achieving the act punishable by law.
The offense is considered intentional (l'infraction intentionnelle) even if the criminal result exceeds what the perpetrator originally intended. This occurs if the perpetrator foresaw the occurrence of this result and accepted the risk, whether it resulted from an act or an omission.
As for fault (la faute), it occurs when a harmful act results from negligence, lack of precaution, or failure to observe laws and regulations. These three elements form the basis of liability in unintentional offenses.
The offense is unintentional (l'infraction non intentionnelle) in two cases. The first case is when the perpetrator does not foresee the result of their act or omission, but they could have or should have foreseen it.
The second case of an unintentional offense occurs when the perpetrator foresees the criminal result, but assumes they can avoid it. In this case, there is no acceptance of the risk, but rather a misjudgment that makes them at fault.
Official legal articles
Think deeper
How does the law distinguish between a perpetrator who foresees the result and accepts the risk, and a perpetrator who foresees the result and assumes they can avoid it?
Flashcards
How does the law define criminal intent?
Intent is the will to commit a crime as defined by the law.
When is an offense considered intentional despite the criminal result exceeding the perpetrator's intent?
It is considered intentional if the perpetrator foresaw the occurrence of the result and accepted the risk.
What are the cases that constitute fault in a harmful act?
Fault occurs if the act results from negligence, lack of precaution, or failure to observe laws and regulations.
Is the offense considered intentional if the perpetrator foresaw the result and assumed they could avoid it?
No, in this case, the offense is unintentional.
What is the ruling for someone who did not foresee the result of their wrongful act but should have foreseen it?
Their offense is considered unintentional.
Is the occurrence of intentional and unintentional offenses limited to performing a positive act only?
No, the law stipulates that the result can arise from an act or an omission.
Practice questions
According to the law, what is the definition of criminal intent?
Intent is the will to commit a crime as defined by the law (Article 188).
A person committed an act and the criminal result exceeded their intent, but they had foreseen its occurrence and accepted the risk. What is the legal characterization of the offense?
The offense is intentional if the perpetrator foresaw the result and accepted the risk, even if the result exceeded their intent (Article 189).
Which of the following elements is not considered a cause for the occurrence of fault according to the law?
Acceptance of risk makes the offense intentional (Article 189). Fault results from negligence, lack of precaution, or failure to observe regulations (Article 190).
If the perpetrator foresaw the result of their wrongful act, but assumed they could avoid it, what is the description of the offense?
The offense is unintentional if the perpetrator foresaw the result but assumed they could avoid it (Article 191).
Can an unintentional offense result from an omission or failure to act?
An unintentional offense can result from a wrongful act or omission (Article 191).
Case problems
A driver drove their car at a frantic speed in a street crowded with pedestrians. The driver foresaw that they might run over someone due to their speed, but they did not care and decided to continue driving at this speed, accepting this risk. This resulted in running over a pedestrian. Is their offense considered intentional or unintentional?
Model answer
The offense is considered intentional.
The offense is considered intentional even if the criminal result exceeded the perpetrator's intent if they had foreseen its occurrence and accepted the risk (Article 189).
In this case, the driver foresaw the result of their act (running over someone) and accepted the risk by continuing to drive.
Therefore, the description of an intentional offense applies to them, even though they did not intend the running over itself as a primary goal.
Self-grading rubric
A construction site owner failed to place warning signs around a deep pit, which is required by municipal regulations. They did not foresee that anyone would fall into the pit. At night, a person fell into the pit and was injured. What is the legal characterization of the site owner's act?
Model answer
The site owner's act constitutes a fault and an unintentional offense.
A fault exists if the harmful act results from the failure to observe laws and regulations (Article 190).
The site owner violated municipal regulations by not placing the signs.
The offense is unintentional if the perpetrator did not foresee the result and should have foreseen it (Article 191).
The site owner should have foreseen a person falling due to the absence of signs, so their offense is unintentional, resulting from their wrongful omission.
Self-grading rubric
A person fired a gun into the air in celebration at an event. They foresaw that the bullet might fall and hit someone, but they believed they were an expert marksman and could aim the weapon in a way that avoided hitting anyone. The bullet fell and hit a person. Is the offense intentional?
Model answer
No, the offense is unintentional.
The offense is unintentional if the perpetrator foresaw the result but assumed they could avoid it (Article 191).
In this case, the perpetrator foresaw the result (hitting a person) but did not accept the risk.
Instead, they relied on their skill and assumed they could avoid the result.
Therefore the rule of accepting the risk (Article 189) does not apply, and the offense is considered unintentional (Article 191).