IndexIntroductionIntention in generalThe difference between intent and hostile intentMental illnessImmature ageConclusionIntroductionHigh treason is well known as a common law crime its origins come from Roman law which in Roman -Dutch law was known as 'hoogverraad'. High treason has been identified as a crime committed by individuals with hostile intentions, to cause harm or threaten the freedom of the country or the security of the Republic of Namibia. It is a fact that high treason is something prepared or attempted with a hostile intention to cause harm to the state or government of the country. This assignment will further focus on the procedures to be followed when the State must determine whether the defendant had hostile intent and the conditions of hostile intent. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay High treason is the unlawful commission of any act with the “additional intent” of overthrowing or coercing the state. Well defined as intentionally betraying one's allegiance by calling for war on the government or giving aid or consolation to its enemies. It is the most serious crime that can be committed against the government and, furthermore, carries a prison sentence. High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's government. Engaging in a fight against one's own country, attempting to overthrow its government, spying on its military, ambassadors or secret services on behalf of a hostile, foreign power, or attempting to assassinate its head of state are perhaps the examples best known. of high treason. High treason requires the accused traitor to have pledges of loyalty within the state he betrayed, but this will most often be fulfilled by being exhibited within the state at the time of the crime, or by being a citizen of the state in the case at abroad. Negligence is a legal term, it alludes to legitimate fault and liability in all aspects of the law. It refers both to the actus reus and to the psychological condition of the suspect. The basic guideline is that an offender should have the ability to think about the harm his activities might cause, and therefore should expect to stay away from such activities. Different forms of liability use different notions of guilt, in some it is not necessary to prove guilt, but the absence of it. In criminal law, the mens rea is used to decide whether the defendant has a criminal purpose in carrying out the demonstration and, if this is true, is thus liable for the illicit act. However, this is not necessary for strict liability crimes, for which a specific state of mind is not required to satisfy the burden of proof. act and awareness of the circumstances referred to in the definitive elements as well as of the illegitimacy. There are two elements of intention, a cognitive and a conative element. The cognitive test is a test in criminal law. It tests the suspect's ability to know certain things, particularly the nature of his conduct and the ability to choose whether his conduct was right. Intention in criminal law is a bit subjective, when someone's mind is unable to provide direct evidence from witnesses. This can only be proven by inference after the documents, as well as from the statements of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. A very important general principle of criminal law is that a person cannot usually be convicted of a crime without intending or intending to contravene the law. With limited exemptions, the person does not need to know that the act itself is a crime, acting as if he or she does not know the law is not a pardon for conductcriminal. In this way, if an individual accepts that what he has done is lawful and purposefully carries out that act, the legitimate condition of criminal intent is satisfied''. Mens rea comes from the Latin for blameworthy mind and talks about what the accused's mind was like when the actus reus was committed. Propositional could be a subjective concept, what the defendant was thinking at the time of the crime, as opposed to objective, which is what a reasonable individual would have thought in the same position. Intention is the highest form of mens rea and an example of this is the case of theft. The reason for the theft is the intention to deprive someone of personal belongings permanently. Without the intent to take the property the defendant is not guilty of the crime. The intention can be indirect or direct. Direct intent is wherever the defendant actually desires the consequences of their actions. Oblique intention gives the concept of intent a broader meaning; the consequence was not the defendant's intent but was "virtually certain" to occur as an end result of his actions. The Difference Between Hostile Intention and Intention Hostile intent has been defined in many writings as a path to the authoritarian element of betrayal. Motive is not sufficient to be held responsible for committing high treason. Hostile intent can be an opinion based on a person's feelings, as well as not an objective element that can prove the crime of treason. While the goal of overthrowing the Republic's government certainly does not constitute hostile intent, hostile intent is not limited to this state of mind. Someone who plans to overthrow the Namibian government by force, but has no intention of overthrowing it, has hostile intent. Intention is something subjective, someone's state of mind that they are unable to prove directly through witnesses. This can be demonstrated through interpretation when the defendant behaves and expresses himself according to the surrounding circumstances. The requirement contained in the definition of high treason according to which the alleged acts must have been committed with hostile intent against the State does not mean that the accused must have been animated by feelings of hatred or malice towards the State but only that it was intentionally oppose it. Treason may be committed and hostile intent may be met with opinion to achieve some additional purpose. The crucial objective may be the presumed achievement of a few solids or an economic advantage aimed at a part or even the entire public. It could be the result of some member of the opposition party or some political or ideological theory, or it could be the satisfaction of individual ambition or even the unleashing of individual hatred. None of these extreme reasons are important in investigating whether or not a betrayal has been committed. Whatever factors remain that induce a citizen to harbor an intention to assist the adversary, or to weaken the power opposed to the enemy, in the event that he acts to carry out this intention he commits an act of treason. Conditions that the State may require to demonstrate hostile intentThe tort of treason described as any conduct criminally committed by an individual loyal to a state with the intention of: overthrowing the government of the Republic; forcing the government by violence into any action or inaction; violate, threaten or endanger the existence, independence or security of the Republic; change the constitutional structure of the Republic. For each speech and for each record motivation the situation should be carefully examined alone and together with all other permissible material to decide whether there is evidence of intenthostile towards the state. The prosecution should prove that the defendant knows that what he will do is illegal to commit the communist doctrine of violent revolution or that he spread this guideline by means of it. The prosecution must demonstrate, with reference to countless documents and dialogues, that the accused have a strategy of violence. The Court must demonstrate by all means that the accused obtained or accepted a plan to overthrow the State through violence, while knowing that the masses must organize themselves towards acts of violence directed against the State. The indictment is appropriate to prove treason. demonstrate the violent plan of the crime committed beyond any reasonable doubt as well as the adherence to it of each accused. An individual who believes such actions are against the Government of Namibia, with the belief that a new government or a different form of government might be in the interests of the Republic of Namibia, is not exempt from his motives. For example, their efforts, propaganda and demonstrations that are intended to force the government to take a safe direction could in particular circumstances result in high treason. Subsequently, it must be demonstrated that the aim of the accused was to organize crowds in campaigns, continuation of institutions and strikes against the State, which through a trial of this will mark its burdens as enshrined within the Independent Constitution. possible defenses that can be advanced. Mental Illness The defense of insanity will be raised, in order to conclude that the accused was criminally responsible at the time he committed the crime, as mentioned in sections 77 to 79 of the Namibian Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. Article 78 states that whoever commits an action constituting a crime and the natural person at the time of such commission has a problem of insanity or mental defect which renders him incapable of appreciating the illegitimacy of his performance; or to act accordingly by assessing the illegitimacy of his action, he will not be criminally responsible for such action. The section clearly specifies that the word act constituting an offense does not refer to a crime for which the suspect is responsible, but simply to an act that agrees with the defining elements of the applicable crime. Immature age The first part of criminal responsibility, is that the accused suffered from a mental illness, will be considered first. It is clarified in the subsection of section 78 of the Namibian Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and section 79, that the accused must have suffered from insanity and must be of strong mind with the aid of psychiatric indications. It is not essential to prove that an infection or mental weakness originated in the mind of the accused, the defense could be fruitful even if the cause was organic, as in the case of atherosclerosis. It could be situated of eternal or impermanent nature. For the accused to raise this defense, he obviously needs to be immature at the time of the act. The privilege of every individual to comment tons of open meaning and to be tuned in by anyone who needs to listen has the right to speak freely as said in chapter 3 of the Namibian framework, should not be unduly diminished by the fear of being indicted for treason in the case the releases are antagonistic in the ear of power to be sure that such feedback does not meet the principles of incredible taste, reasonableness and honesty that one would accept as a wise writer or open speaker. The right to speak freely is also very advantageous for allowing oneself to be suffocated by such a ghost. It's powerful feedback that greases the wheels of the voting-based system and energetically electrifies the sluggish government apparatus..