ABSTRACT
The first potential reason that comes to mind for treating direct intention and recklessness differently in criminal offences has to do with degrees of moral blameworthiness. It is common to find in the literature the idea that there is more moral blameworthiness in causing a proscribed result intentionally than in causing it recklessly. When people want to prove that acting with intention is more blameworthy than acting with recklessness, they sometimes advance examples in order to support their argument. The common idea that criminal liability should generally not attach unless the actor has a culpable state of mind when he is acting. Many think that the main purpose of the criminal law is to protect against harms by general deterrence. In order to protect against harms the legislator enacts criminal offences that contain a prohibition against doing certain acts, together with a threat of punishment.
