(As an example, various crimes legally require mens rea, lit. “guilty mind”, in order to be criminal. Humans care about this stuff enough to bake it into their legal codes.)
Even in the law of mental states, intent follows the advice in this post. U.S. law commonly breaks down the ‘guilty mind’ into at least four categories, which, in the absence of a confession, all basically work by observing the defendant’s patterns of behaviour. There may be some more operational ideas in the legal treatment of reckless and negligent behaviour.
acting purposely—the defendant had an underlying conscious object to act
acting knowingly—the defendant is practically certain that the conduct will cause a particular result
acting recklessly—The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk
acting negligently—The defendant was not aware of the risk, but should have been aware of the risk
Even in the law of mental states, intent follows the advice in this post. U.S. law commonly breaks down the ‘guilty mind’ into at least four categories, which, in the absence of a confession, all basically work by observing the defendant’s patterns of behaviour. There may be some more operational ideas in the legal treatment of reckless and negligent behaviour.
acting purposely—the defendant had an underlying conscious object to act
acting knowingly—the defendant is practically certain that the conduct will cause a particular result
acting recklessly—The defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk
acting negligently—The defendant was not aware of the risk, but should have been aware of the risk