What does Intent Mean?

I am not a lawyer but it is my understanding that for me to be convicted of a crime, it needs to be demonstrated that I intended to commit that crime. For example if I along with two or three friends are in a bar and one of my friends says "I am going to have to rob a jewellery store to pay next month's bills" - that is not a crime. If after a few beers we all start to fantasize about robbing a jewellery store - that is not a crime. If a stranger joins our table, listens in on our conversation and gives a few helpful tips as to where to buy a few guns or dynamite to blow up the safe - my friends and I have not committed a crime. No matter how serious the stranger thinks we are - if we are just talking - no crime has been committed. It is only when we start to take action on that list of things to do could it be conceived that we were going to commit a crime. If I buy a gun, after going through all of the appropriate steps, in spite of my wild speculation in a bar drinking with friends and one stranger - that is not a crime.

The Law Dictionary when discussing intent says it can be defined " as a desire to commit a specific act in the expectation that it will result in a specific outcome' (Law Dictionary). The Canadian Encyclopaedia states that " there is no criminal responsibility unless the guilty mind required by the offense can be proven." That is (I think) someone cannot be found guilty unless it is proven that they intended to commit a crime or that there is a reasonable assumption that my actions would have caused a crime (e.g. drinking and driving).

I have two questions: (1) if the only witness to our conversation about robbing that jewellery store is the stranger who joined us and who gave a few helpful hints, regardless of whether or not he is an uncover policeman - does his testimony have more weight than my pleads of innocence? And (2) is the burden of proof as to intent lower for acts of proposed terrorism than other types of crime. I ask these questions after reading some of the testimony from the police officer involved in the trial of the young couple who are alleged to have threatened to blow up the Legislature in Victoria, B.C.

I can appreciate that one cannot allow people who are going to commit a crime or kill people to do the act before they are arrested. That strategy did not work out well in the Air India disaster. Clearly there must be a point when there is clear intent to do harm. And that intent can be proven. On the other hand it seems to me to be a slippery slope when the primary evidence appears to be coming from one individual who I assume in consultation with his superiors gets to decide that these folks are actually capable of blowing something up.

I suspect that in criminal cases the standards of proof are well established in Common Law and in precedence. Everyone knows what intent means. With the exception of cases where the alleged criminal demonstrates mental health or developmental concerns, the issue of intent is seldom an issue. I also suspect that in cases where a terrorism act is alleged to have been discussed and planned - the guidelines are far less clear. For judges, Crown Attorneys and defense lawyers it is a brand new world.

I hope someone is working on some clear guidelines. I think we are going to need them

Polls - Finally One I Agree With

I may, in the past, have alluded to the fact that I am not all that enamoured with the plethora of public opinion polls. In spite of my taking a number of university courses in statistics and survey design, I remain unconvinced that many of the surveys truly capture the mood of the Canadian public. Part of my discomfort with the surveys may be that the pollsters never seem to call me. Having said that, the Globe and Mail have just released the results of a poll by Nanos that I think is interesting. The poll asked, amongst other questions, what Canadians thought their federal leaders should be focusing on.

In spite of the Conservative's much repeated statements that Canadians are concerned about terrorism and support the government's various interventions, the results from the Nanos poll suggest very clearly that strengthening the economy is far more important. In fact 90% of the respondents indicated that " the party or leader with the best plan for the Canadian economy will be more important in determining who wins than the party with the best plan to fight terrorists" (Globe and Mail). I am impressed and rather surprised with my fellow Canadians. It is good to know that in spite of all the hype in Ottawa about where the priorities are - Canadians when asked recognize that we need to get our own house in order. Just because we have a stable banking system does not mean that we have a healthy economy.

For a political party that has argued that it is particularly skilled at managing the economy - the Conservatives seem to have mismanaged our economy. Because of their insistence that Canada is primarily a resource based economy, they have ignored other sectors. As well they have not invested in the infrastructure. Their insistence that if they cut taxes both at the corporate and personal levels, the economy would thrive demonstrates their archaic and misguided economic thinking. While the budget has not yet been release (yet another example of the government not being on top of things), many of the "goodies" have been released. It would appear that once again the government may have misread what the public wants.

The data from the Nanos poll demonstrates quite clearly that Canadians, if there were to be a surplus in the budget, are far more interested in job creation and infrastructure development than in tax cuts. Even investing in social programs was more of a priority than tax cuts for those who responded to the survey.

While it is possible that Harper will do a 180 degree turn in policy direction, it seems unlikely given his need to maintain his political base that he will become a politician who increases taxes and spends money on helping Canadians. I suspect that neither of the two other leaders have the courage to gamble that there more Canadians than one would have perhaps thought who understand that one needs to spend money to make thing work.

But I can live in hope.

Mental health and Flying

The recent tragedy of the crash of the Germanwings Airbus A320 in the Alps raises some interesting questions about air safety and how we can protect ourselves. Some of the answers may be diametrical opposite to what we believe to be Canadian values.

In Canada, in the past few years, there has been an increased public dialogue about at least some of issues related to mental illness. Anyone who can read, use social media or who watches any of the Canadian commercial television broadcasts knows that one out of five Canadians will live with some form of a mental illness during their life time. This means that most of us will at the very least know someone well who lives with a mental illness. In fact we will in all likelihood know numerous people. This knowledge should mean that that (1) we will be more likely supportive when a close friend or family member is experiencing difficulties, (2) that we will be less ashamed to get hep when we need it and (3) that people living with a mental illness will be far less discriminated against than in the past.

On the other hand using the example of the recent crash it would appear that there might be jobs in which people who are struggling with mental health should not be allowed to do, and that some may suggest that we need to do more intrusive monitoring of those who work in those fields. I suspect there is an argument to be made that those who have, as part of their job description, a responsibility to ensure other people's safety need to be held to a higher level of mental health than someone who does not come into contact with the general public. That group might include not only pilots but perhaps as well train engineers, bus drivers and the police. Of course the problem with that argument is that the list quickly becomes too long. Civil rights advocates would, with justification, argue that regular, mandatory mental health examination of sufficient intensity to "catch" those who are hiding problems would a gross violation of human rights.

I don't think there is an easy answer. In hindsight, I suspect that most would agree that that pilot should have been prevented from flying that day, and that whatever measures required, no matter how intrusive,  should have been in place to know that he should not have flown. I think most of us would agree unless of course we were the ones who perhaps once a week had to sit down in front of a stranger and discuss intimate details of our lives before we were allowed to do our jobs. Most of us would agree - but I suspect we would disagree who should pay for such sessions.

As Canadian society continues to develop its awareness of the complexities of both living with a mental illness and supporting those who do, we will need to also develop better mechanisms to deal with the multifaceted legal, social and moral issues that will arise.  Finding the line between protecting the public good and defending individual rights may be one of the harder ones to resolve.

On a side note, the Harper government's response to this tragedy was to immediately establish a new policy stating that there must be two people in the cockpit at all times. This means that when the pilot leaves to get a coffee or to go to the bathroom, another airline employee needs to stay with the other pilot until the first returns.  Which sort of makes sense except that the only people available are the attendants/stewards/or whatever they are called. I am also not too sure how qualified they are to deal with an emergency that might require some flying skills. As well, as their union has suggested, those individuals are already stretched to their limits and if there was an emergency - there would not be enough help for the passengers. It is an interesting band-aid solution that does nothing to resolve the real issue.