There's been some confusion as to General Intent because 
supposedly Prof. Chang said that General Intent has a mens rea 
and that you need an "additional intent..."

It's easier for me to keep Specific and General Intent separate:

General Intent: ACTUS REUS only
Specific Intent: ACTUS REUS + MENS REA...

However, let me give to you this definition of GENERAL intent that 
may help:

_____________________________________________
GENERAL INTENT-- Actus Reus only but there is an 
Awareness of Factors Constituting Crime

Almost all crimes require at least "general intent" which is 
defined as AN AWARENESS OF ALL FACTORS CONSTITUTING 
THE CRIME; 

for example: defendant must be aware that she is acting in the 
proscribed way and that any required attendant circumstances 
exist. 

The defendant need not be certain that all the circumstances 
exist; it is sufficient that she is aware of a high likelihood that
they will occur.

********* You can INFER the defendant had the required 
GENERAL INTENT merely from the defendant DOING OF THE 
ACT.


So when we say that General Intent only requires the action, the 
actus reus, there is some sort of AWARENESS of the defendant 
that what they are doing is wrong, this is NOT the same as 
MENS REA. (AWARENESS IS NOT THE SAME as Mens REA).

___________________

Under STRICT LIABILITY-- NO AWARENESS of the factors 
constituting the crime is required. 

That's the BIG FAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEEN 
Strict Liability and General Intent-- 

General Intent has that AWARENESS...
___________________

Please please tell me if I've confused you guys more...
Just email...
Anna

PS. Now just because I've given you this humongous definition 
of General Intent, DOES NOT MEAN you should break it down for 
Chang on your exam. 

You should still say whether or not a crime is specific or general, 
but not regurgitate what I've just told you! This is for you 
understanding. Only use this piece of info, if it's relevant!