[QUOTE=butre;51251823]in theory, yeah, but give me an example other than murder or apparently now treason where intent can be a deciding factor[/QUOTE]
Any criminal court case. That's literally how it works. Do you need me to explain it to you again?
Civil Court cases use the 'preponderance of evidence' standard in order to judge guilt.
Criminal Cases use the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard in order to judge guilt.
[QUOTE=butre;51251823]in theory, yeah, but give me an example other than murder or apparently now treason where intent can be a deciding factor[/QUOTE]
Are you asking for legal precedents where mens rea was applied?
[QUOTE=phaedon;51251839]Are you asking for legal precedents where mens rea was applied?[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea[/url]
[QUOTE]Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. Moreover, it is the state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). Establishing the mens rea of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in criminal trial. In doing so, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense with a culpable state of mind. Justice Holmes famously illustrated the concept of intent when he said “even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked.”
The mens rea requirement is premised upon the idea that one must possess a guilty state of mind and be aware of his or her misconduct; however, a defendant need not know that their conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime. Rather, the defendant must be conscious of the “facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense.”
If a statute specifies a mental state for an offense, courts will usually apply the requisite mental state to each element of the crime. Moreover, even if a statute refrains from mentioning a mental state, courts will usually require that the government still prove that the defendant possessed a guilty state of mind during the commission of the crime. For example, the Supreme Court of the United States instructed that federal criminal statutes without a requisite mental state “should be read to include ‘only that mens rea which is necessary to separate” wrongful from innocent conduct.’”
Mental states are usually organized hierarchically by the offender’s state of blameworthiness. Generally, the blameworthiness of an actor’s mental state corresponds to the seriousness of the crime. For example, the Model Penal Code organizes and defines culpable states of mind into four hierarchical categories: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent. Thus, a crime committed purposefully would carry a more severe punishment than if the offender was merely reckless. The Model Penal Code greatly impacted the criminal codes of a number of states and continues to be influential in furthering discourse on mens rea.
Although mens rea is a required element for most crimes, it is not for strict liability crimes. For a strict liability crime, it is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed the wrongful act. Therefore, a guilty state of mind is irrelevant to a strict liability offense. Examples of strict liability offenses in criminal law include possession and statutory rape. Many commentators criticize convicting defendants under strict liability because of the lack of mens rea. In contrast, the prosecution may applaud the relief from the burden of proving criminal intent.[/QUOTE]
That's the legal definition.
As for legal precedents, if you can spend 20 years going through all the legal jargon, rules, exceptions, clauses and special cases, then here you go:
[url]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/600/case.html[/url]
[url]http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/us_v_heredia.pdf[/url]
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-983[/url]
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-108[/url]
There's a few I could find from a quick search. However, you'd need a lot more than that if you want to find some sort of legal loophole or something.
This forum will turn into pol if people keep this up toxxing themselves and trump wins...
Everything according to plan muhahahhah.
[QUOTE=butre;51251823]in theory, yeah, but give me an example other than murder or apparently now treason where intent can be a deciding factor[/QUOTE]
The idea is that it's only treason if you're actively aware of the damage you're causing, and you're still okay with it. If it's an accident, like you accidentally gave a secret document to a Russian spy because you were convinced he was an FBI agent, you wouldn't be punished as a criminal. You'd probably get fired for doing a shitty job, but even though you helped a foreign power against us, you weren't actually aware of what you were doing.
It's a common mentality that if you were involved in causing wrongdoing in any way, you deserve punishment. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially in large-scale political dilemmas. The concept of punishment and the delivery of justice is to teach the guilty person that their actions are not okay. If the person knew they weren't okay and it happened unintentionally, or didn't know that certain actions would circumstantially result in wrongdoing, then it would be unjust to punish them as though they [I]did[/I] do it on purpose.
For example: Let's say you throw a lighter in the garbage because it won't light anymore. It turns out it [I]can[/I] light, and somehow it catches fire, and burns down three houses on your street. Will you be charged with arson? Absolutely not, it was an accident. Will you get in trouble/pay fines for property loss/damage? Probably.
I'm not explicitly trying to defend Clinton here. That's a very complex case with many, [I]many[/I] factors involved. I'm just trying to explain some of how justice is meant to be applied in our country, especially regarding intent.
[QUOTE=Zyler;51251867]
That's the legal definition.
As for legal precedents, if you can spend 20 years going through all the legal jargon, rules, exceptions, clauses and special cases, then here you go:
[url]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/600/case.html[/url]
[url]http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/us_v_heredia.pdf[/url]
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-983[/url]
[url]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-108[/url]
There's a few I could find from a quick search. However, you'd need a lot more than that if you want to find some sort of legal loophole or something.[/QUOTE]
I was just being surprised over the request for legal precedents on what is a well-known legal principle.
I know that the US legal system is somewhat different from the continental one, and I am not going to pretend to understand any of its nuances, but this seems like a pretty universal thing to me.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51251885]This forum will turn into pol if people keep this up toxxing themselves and trump wins...
Everything according to plan muhahahhah.[/QUOTE]
Are you being sarcastic? Or do you actually want to be in an unironic neo nazi echo chamber?
At this point I literally cannot tell.
[editline]24th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=phaedon;51251901]I was just being surprised over the request for legal precedents on what is a well-known legal principle.
I know that the US legal system is somewhat different from the continental one, and I am not going to pretend to understand any of its nuances, but this seems like a pretty universal thing to me.[/QUOTE]
Well it's the basis of common law in most western countries, as far as I'm aware.
I've noticed people in general often make outrageous claims about things they know nothing about which sounds insane to someone who actually knows something about the topic. Not just people actually, there are tons of sensationalist science magazines that do the same thing ("Scientists discover faster than light travel!") or television programmes ("Scientists discover that tomatoes cure cancer!"). The more you notice it the more ridiculous it becomes.
I should have toxxed saying I'll eat a ghost pepper instead of a perma. Oh well. God speed boys and girls
The US Constitution explicitly states that treason can only be done during a state of war
[quote][B]Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them[/B], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.[/quote]
Regardless of malfeasance committed, the intention or non intention, or the guilt or non guilt, [B]by law Hillary Clinton could not have committed treason.[/B]
In fact, since the US no longer lawfully declares wars through Congress, it's virtually impossible in this day in age for [I]any[/I] American to commit treason.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;51250395]There is no such thing as "accidental treason"[/QUOTE]
There actually is if my memory serves me correctly, the cold war a couple women were put on trial for being tricked into leaking classified documents to boyfriends that turned out to be soviet connections.
they were tricked into thinking their boyfriends had a higher clearance then they did so they thought it was ok to give them the file when they thought it was some bullshit request to get to see them.
Treason is one of the most flexible things to put on someone i guess. and it does matter on intent in ways.
If you are all gonna toxx for Hillary at least make it a challenge, like for example her winning Georgia.
All of you are cowards if you toxx towards trump not winning at this point
It's always sad to see young, able men putting their accounts on the line like this.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51252283]All of you are cowards if you toxx towards trump not winning at this point[/QUOTE]
Permaban me if Trump doesnt win. No escape.
Either I get to stay at FP, or I get to live in a world where Trump isnt the president. Its a win-win for me.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx Clause: Ban me if Trump does not win the presidency. No escape." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
OK, I'm toxxing now too!
Hillary Clinton will at the very minimum win all states Obama won in 2012.
Escape clause is I will write an erotic fanfic between Trump and his daughter Ivanka.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx Clause: Ban me if Clinton does not win every state that Obama won during general election. Escape: Must write erotic fanfic of Trump x Ivanka" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=WhyNott;51252857]Permaban me if Trump doesnt win. No escape.
Either I get to stay at FP, or I get to live in a world where Trump isnt the president. Its a win-win for me.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx Clause: Ban me if Trump does not win the presidency. No escape." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
this person is the only person who isn't a sellout coward punk
also somewhat foolish as they didn't agree to any escape from their potential fate
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51252975]OK, I'm toxxing now too!
Hillary Clinton will at the very minimum win all states Obama won in 2012.
Escape clause is I will write an erotic fanfic between Trump and his daughter Ivanka.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx Clause: Ban me if Clinton does not win every state that Obama won during general election. Escape: Must write erotic fanfic of Trump x Ivanka" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
That's sickingly disgusting. Very creative
I feel like BDA is having a great time in here.
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51252975]OK, I'm toxxing now too!
Hillary Clinton will at the very minimum win all states Obama won in 2012.
Escape clause is I will write an erotic fanfic between Trump and his daughter Ivanka.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Toxx Clause: Ban me if Clinton does not win every state that Obama won during general election. Escape: Must write erotic fanfic of Trump x Ivanka" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight][/QUOTE]Come on, dude. You were going to do that anyways.
[QUOTE=bradleigh;51253476]Come on, dude. You were going to do that anyways.[/QUOTE]
Of all the fetishes I have, incest isn't one of them. :sick:
Fuck it, I'll toxx.
If Trump wins the election, permaban me unless I record the absolute worst vocal cover to that shitty recorder cover of "My Heart Will Go On" and post it. If I'm gonna live in the post-apocalyptic hellscape that Trump's promising, I might as well try to sing about it while the ship sinks.
[QUOTE=bitches;51249544]people who toxx themselves without any interest in competing to get someone else banned must just not like facepunch or something
i guess the idea is to simply forfeit their fancy gold avatar accounts for a blue one?[/QUOTE]
fuck people and their fun
[QUOTE=CroGamer002;51253533]Of all the fetishes I have, incest isn't one of them. :sick:[/QUOTE]
I wonder, will trump illegalize gay marriage and legalize incest?
makes u wonder
-jej-
I'll Toxx for something a bit more realistic.
If Clinton loses, I will put two staples in my arm and record it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
