Metanet Forums

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 60842.html

Money shot:

Prosecutors identify defendants to go after instead of finding a law that was broken and figuring out who did it.

As one hacker put it:

It's quite clear to anyone who follows federal cases that this is exactly what is going on, and it is rather obvious why anything that enables this is perverting justice.

That's very interesting, but to commit a crime requires not only breaking the law, but having intent to break the law. If I ever get tied up in one of those types of cases, I would sue the DA for all that they were worth for wasting my time.

Lachesis wrote:but to commit a crime requires not only breaking the law, but having intent to break the law

Hahahaha, what?

]

Lachesis wrote:That's very interesting, but to commit a crime requires not only breaking the law, but having intent to break the law. If I ever get tied up in one of those types of cases, I would sue the DA for all that they were worth for wasting my time.

Hmm... At once it makes sense, but at the same time, it doesn't makes sense. It depends on the crime in question though, right? You could use something illegal and not know it was illegal, just because your uncle gave you something. Right? I certainly hope the you at least wouldn't be held fully accountable for it.

Eh, ortz? I think Lachesis is right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
One of the main exceptions is ignorance of the law, which is not considered a valid excuse.

On the OP: this is what judges are for. It's okay to criticise the laws themselves, but blame also lies with judges who insist on being ridiculously literal in their interpretations.

SkyPanda wrote:Eh, ortz? I think Lachesis is right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
One of the main exceptions is ignorance of the law, which is not considered a valid excuse.

On the OP: this is what judges are for. It's okay to criticise the laws themselves, but blame also lies with judges who insist on being ridiculously literal in their interpretations.

Are we not talking about using ignorance of the law as an excuse? That was my interpretation of Lachesis's comment, at least.

Edit: I've heard of mens rea and how it relates to murder versus manslaughter. I'm reading more about it now and I can't grasp how it coexists with the concept of ignorance being no excuse.

Might wrote:]

Lachesis wrote:That's very interesting, but to commit a crime requires not only breaking the law, but having intent to break the law. If I ever get tied up in one of those types of cases, I would sue the DA for all that they were worth for wasting my time.

Hmm... At once it makes sense, but at the same time, it doesn't makes sense. It depends on the crime in question though, right? You could use something illegal and not know it was illegal, just because your uncle gave you something. Right? I certainly hope the you at least wouldn't be held fully accountable for it.

hah no, that would only work if you were very little, then you couldn't be commited for the crime anyways >.>
What Lachesis means is that if you accidentally kill someone, you may not be charged with murder, but yes it does depend on which crime/law breaking your dealing with

jinxed_07 wrote:What Lachesis means is if you accidentally kill someone, you may not be charged with murder, but yes it does depend on which crime/law breaking your dealing with

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

Lachesis wrote:That's very interesting, but to commit a crime requires not only breaking the law, but having intent to break the law. If I ever get tied up in one of those types of cases, I would sue the DA for all that they were worth for wasting my time.

The article you didn't read wrote:This problem is compounded by a trend that has accelerated since the 1980s for prosecutors to abandon the principle that there can't be a crime without criminal intent.

:/

scythe33 wrote:

Lachesis wrote:That's very interesting, but to commit a crime requires not only breaking the law, but having intent to break the law. If I ever get tied up in one of those types of cases, I would sue the DA for all that they were worth for wasting my time.

The article you didn't read wrote:This problem is compounded by a trend that has accelerated since the 1980s for prosecutors to abandon the principle that there can't be a crime without criminal intent.

:/

I did read it. I'm just saying that if they did pursue me as a serious suspect, I would sue their asses for wasting my time.

Lachesis wrote:

scythe33 wrote:

Lachesis wrote:That's very interesting, but to commit a crime requires not only breaking the law, but having intent to break the law. If I ever get tied up in one of those types of cases, I would sue the DA for all that they were worth for wasting my time.

The article you didn't read wrote:This problem is compounded by a trend that has accelerated since the 1980s for prosecutors to abandon the principle that there can't be a crime without criminal intent.

:/

I did read it. I'm just saying that if they did pursue me as a serious suspect, I would sue their asses for wasting my time.

No, you'd get thrown in jail. That's the point of the freaking article: the normal methods of examining cases are not being used properly.

http://innocenceproject.org/understand/

scythe33 wrote:

Lachesis wrote: I did read it. I'm just saying that if they did pursue me as a serious suspect, I would sue their asses for wasting my time.

No, you'd get thrown in jail. That's the point of the freaking article: the normal methods of examining cases are not being used properly.

http://innocenceproject.org/understand/

Ah, I see now. I had to read it over a couple times.

Crimes can exist where there is no intent. Intent is important in explaning, specifically, which crime has been committed, certainly. However, you can commit plenty of crimes through negligence, accidents, and other foibles which do not directly signify an intent to harm.

blue_tetris wrote:Crimes can exist where there is no intent. Intent is important in explaning, specifically, which crime has been committed, certainly. However, you can commit plenty of crimes through negligence, accidents, and other foibles which do not directly signify an intent to harm.

Intent is not necessary for the conviction of many crimes, yes, but it depends on the crime. I would expect that of the three felonies you commit a day, I doubt any of them are prosecutable.

How did you know I kill people, sell drugs, and sell hors?

Aldaric wrote:How did you know I kill people, sell drugs, and sell hors?

Magic.