With regard to the additional tool that assists the court when it comes to examining the element of "intention", it was held that:
"The additional tool that helps to examine whether an intention was fulfilled is known as the "Expectations Rule" or the "Expectations Rule." The rule of expectation is an essential substitute for intention. President Barak described it as an extension of the term "intention": the general expectation stems from an interpretive conclusion that the term "intention" has two meanings. First, there is an intention when there is a desire to achieve the result. Second, intention can also exist in the absence of a will, but when there is an expectation of a result with a high degree of probability. The rule of expectation is anchored in section 20(b) of the Law: "With regard to intention, foresight of the occurrence of the results, as a near certainty possibility, is tantamount to a goal to deceive."
- Although these are two main tools that help, as mentioned, there is a difference between the two tools. Elron and Razin also discussed these differences in their aforementioned book, according to which they are:
"Both the presumption of intention, and the general expectation attribute to a person an intention to cause the result derived from his actions. Still, there are some important differences between them. First, in terms of the degree of anticipation of the results. The presumption of intention discusses the "natural" result of the act. On the other hand, a viewing rule requires a level of observation at a level close to certainty. ... Second, in terms of the attitude toward those who did not intend to cause the result. The presumption of intention is contradictory. The defendant may try to prove that the element of intent did not exist in him – and in such a case the presumption of intent will not assist the prosecution. On the other hand, the rule of expectation can be applied even when the defendant genuinely did not want to cause the victim's death. It cannot contradict the rule established by the legislature. Third, in terms of the substance of the matter. The presumption of intention is an evidentiary tool. The rule of expectation is an essential substitute for intention, and it establishes a moral equivalence between one who foresaw a near possibility that an outcome would be deafening, and one who intended that the result would occur."
- In the book by Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer and Dr. Khaled Ghana'im, "The Reform of the Offenses of Homicide" (2019)) in light of the basic principles of law and historical and comparative research (2020)", in the chapter dealing with the basic crime of murder, the authors noted the following in the context of the basic crime of murder committed with intent:
"The intention at issue here is spontaneous intention, since the first intention, according to the proposal, is placed in murder under aggravated circumstances" (p. 269).