(2) The offense is of the type of offense of strict liability.
Criminal intent is defined in Section 20 of the Law as follows:
- (a) Criminal thought – awareness of the nature of the act, the existence of the circumstances and the possibility of causing the consequences of the act, which are included in the details of the offense, and with regard to the consequences, one of the following:
(1) Intent – with the aim of causing the same results;
(2) Recklessness in one of the following:
(a) Indifference – with equanimity to the possibility of causing the aforementioned results;
(b) frivolity – by taking an unreasonable risk of causing the aforementioned results, in the hope of succeeding in preventing them.
(b) With regard to intention, foreseeing the occurrence of the results, as a near certainty possibility, is tantamount to a goal for German.
(c) For the purposes of this section –
(1) A person who suspected the nature of the conduct or the possibility of the existence of the circumstances is considered to have been aware of them, if he refrained from clarifying them;
(2) It does not matter if the act was committed against another person or in another property, from the one in respect of which the act was supposed to be committed.
- In their book "The Offenses of Homicide: The Law and Rulings" (2025), pp. 41-42, the authors of the book, Yosef Elron and Omer Razin, explained the basis of the intention as follows:
"The element of intention is easy to understand: it is required to prove that the defendant intended that the result defined in the offense would be realized. In the offense of manslaughter, it must be proven that the defendant intended to cause the death of the victim. Since this is a clearly subjective element, the complexity of this element lies in the evidentiary level. If the defendant does not explicitly admit that he intended to kill the victim and there is no other conclusive evidence to prove this intention, two main tools assist the court in examining the existence of this element. The first is an evidentiary tool called the "presumption of intention." This is a factual-evidentiary presumption, according to which a reasonable person acting of his own free will intends to cause the natural consequences of his action. Attachment is based on life experience. According to it, a person adopts a certain line of behavior with the intention of causing results that result naturally and with a high probability of this behavior. In applying the presumption of intent, the court examines objective circumstances that may indicate the defendant's state of mind. On the basis of the set of circumstantial facts surrounding the incident, it is possible to establish a presumption as to the defendant's will. Over the years, case law has focused on a number of auxiliary tests, regarding the presumption of intention with respect to the result of a person's death. Among other things, this is the manner in which the offense was committed; the means used to commit the offense; in an exchange before the act is committed; the location and number of injuries to the victim's body; and in the defendant's conduct before and after the commission of the act. The presumption of intention is not an absolute presumption, which means that the defendant has the possibility of contradicting it if he succeeds in raising a reasonable doubt as to his intention. To this end, he will be able to present a probable alternative conclusion from the evidence presented by the prosecution, or he will be able to present evidence that will contradict the presumption. On the other hand, if the defendant did not raise such reasonable doubt, the factual presumption becomes a conclusive presumption as to the intention of his actions and enables an evidentiary determination that the defendant intended that the result enumerated in the elements of the offense would take place."