Learned a new latin phrase: mens rea

[warrior_won]

Intent is only a fraction of what we use to judge action in criminal law. Action and result bear much more weight.

That would depend on the offense. As you so quaintly pointed out, the mens rea would be the key element in an attempted murder charge. You would have to make the case that the accused was "of the mind" to take another's life.

For an attempted murder charge to be successful does there really need to be an "actual attempt"? Or is simply planning and taking action toward that end sufficient?

 

[MikeyDB]

Karrie raises some good points. If a male (since the condition of green/blue color blindness is predominantly male) swears the car that hit that youngster on the street was blue when in fact it was green, that person isn't "lying", their intent is to provide information that may assist the authorities to find a hit-and-run-driver...for instance. The weakness is that we don't pay enough attention to "intent". When a politician stands before a board of inquiry and says.."I can't recall..." or "I don't remember that.." there is a reasonable doubt that what that person is saying as sworn testimony is what they know to be the truth.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and when we have a strain of human beings that call themselves "politicians" and history repeatedly confirms that that strain of human being lies through their teeth time and time again, the veracity of their testimony is justly suspect. The intent that's involved may be to misdirect attention and through this misdirection relieve the focus of scrutiny on a pal a campaign contributor or a "friend" who has some means to influence the chances that this "politician" will be successful at the next election process.

What would be a sufficient incidence of knowingly lying to people (politicians lie all the time and we all know it..) before whatever that person is saying is dismissed as probably not true or accurate..?

Intent insofar as the politician is concerned is to hang onto the reins of power and authority and to do that, they lie like a cheap rug anytime the situation demands it.

Intent doesn't have to be obvious and in most cases, the intentions of one human being are rarely elaborated before action is taken.

 

[warrior_won]

Mistake of Fact is a defense.

You would dispute fact at trial. If you were convicted on facts that were false, or subsequently proven false, you can appeal on a question of fact.

You can raise a question of law as both grounds for defense and/or appeal as well. For example, you could argue that the facts may indeed be correct, but the manner in which the facts were presented or ascertained contravened law. Under those circumstances you could argue that the "facts" could not be used to support a conviction.

 

[MikeyDB]

To muddy the waters even more....

Are Matel and Fisher Price, the FDA and others culpable under the notion of criminal negligence when their practices introduce unsafe prodcts to the consumer?

Is the "inent" to make as much money as possible regardless of the consequences acceptable to the consuming public?

Mr. Toy Dude: "Well I didn't MEAN to sell poison products to parents, it's just one of those crazy things that happens when we put up manufacturing plants in nations that don't have standards to protect consumers..."

Mr. FDA: We didn't MEAN to ignore the lengthy list of warnings and potential health hazards presented by toys and food entering through our system via greedy manufacturers and an apathetic brain-washed consuming public..."

If you think "intent" isn't important ....

 

[karrie]

That would depend on the offense. As you so quaintly pointed out, the mens rea would be the key element in an attempted murder charge. You would have to make the case that the accused was "of the mind" to take another's life.

For an attempted murder charge to be successful does there really need to be an "actual attempt"? Or is simply planning and taking action toward that end sufficient?

No, there needs to be an actual attempt. There is an alternate charge for the scenario you depict, something along the lines of conspiring to commit murder. But even then, there needs to be some provable action having taken place for a court case to be made... a gun bought, a car rented, a hit man hired or something of that nature, uttering threats... something.

 

[karrie]

Can we accept this explanation at face value, or should we dismiss this explanation as mere spin and counter that the officer had more sinister intentions?

Your thoughts?

His intent does weigh into the issue to a degree. But I don't think it ought to dismiss it, no. Intent, action, result, are all factors.

 

[warrior_won]

No, there needs to be an actual attempt. There is an alternate charge for the scenario you depict, something along the lines of conspiring to commit murder. But even then, there needs to be some provable action having taken place for a court case to be made... a gun bought, a car rented, a hit man hired or something of that nature, uttering threats... something.

Uttering threats? lol. I'm quite familiar with that one.

 

[warrior_won]

His intent does weigh into the issue to a degree. But I don't think it ought to dismiss it, no. Intent, action, result, are all factors.

You don't think that one ought to dismiss the 'spin' placed on the action by the officer? Remember, this 'spin' is being applied as a defense. A means to diminish the overall offense. To shrug it off, if you will. There is no question that the offense was committed. What we want to know is why it was committed; we're not satisfied with their explanation.

We can make assumptions as to why it was committed. We can establish that those assumptions have some merit based on a pattern of conduct. Purely circumstantial, mind you.

 

[karrie]

You don't think that one ought to dismiss the 'spin' placed on the action by the officer? Remember, this 'spin' is being applied as a defense. A means to diminish the overall offense. To shrug it off, if you will. There is no question that the offense was committed. What we want to know is why it was committed; we're not satisfied with their explanation.

We can make assumptions as to why it was committed. We can establish that those assumptions have some merit based on a pattern of conduct. Purely circumstantial, mind you.

Well, if you dismiss or completely ignore his professed intent (even if it's a lie), then you set a precedent to have to ignore all other intents discussed by other people. I don't see the value in that. Giving it less weight because you believe it to be a lie makes sense, but, without knowing the case, being the judge or in the jury, one can't really say 'his intent is worth this weight'.

 

[warrior_won]

Well, if you dismiss or completely ignore his professed intent (even if it's a lie), then you set a precedent to have to ignore all other intents discussed by other people. I don't see the value in that. Giving it less weight because you believe it to be a lie makes sense, but, without knowing the case, being the judge or in the jury, one can't really say 'his intent is worth this weight'.

That's my point. If you were before a Judge or Jury, you would want to dismiss his professed intent. You don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt. You want to plant a seed in the mind of the Judge and Jury that there was more there than meets the eye -- that the event was anything but prima facie.

You would probably then move to establish a foundation on which to doubt his credibility. You could do this in several ways, with the ultimate goal being that the Judge or Jury would be unable to believe a word he/she said.

It's classic one, two, down for the count. lol.

 

[gopher]

``From reading case law, I can see that police officers get ripped to shreds all of the time in the courts.``


Don't be too impressed by one case.

I spent three years in law school and can give you dozens of horror stories in which police were the real criminals and got away with murder more than once.:angryfire:

 

[Kreskin]

Mens Rea is an awful bowel condition.

 

[warrior_won]

``From reading case law, I can see that police officers get ripped to shreds all of the time in the courts.``


Don't be too impressed by one case.

I spent three years in law school and can give you dozens of horror stories in which police were the real criminals and got away with murder more than once.:angryfire:

One case? There are literally thousands.

I realize that it is much tougher to put a noose around the neck of a crooked cop, but that in no way suggests that it cannot be done. And more than 5000 cases before the courts in this country shows that the courts are not adverse to you giving it your best shot. :smile::smile::smile:

 

[Niflmir]

It is very important not to conflate "Intent" with "mens rea". The best interpretation is merely, guilty mind. Different crimes require differing degrees of mind set. Mens rea can in varying cases mean

1. Intent: intent on committing the actus rea.
2. Neglect: knowing that your actions may cause the actus rea but proceeding anyways.
3. Wilful ignorance: knowing that maybe your actions are "dangerous" and should be considered more carefully, but not considering them so as to not cause cognitive dissonance.
4. Criminal ignorance: honestly being ignorant that one's actions would bring about the actus rea, but any "reasonable" person would have known.

There are more, I believe, and each one requires varying degrees of evidence. Generally, one must use context to clearly see the distinctions.

There is a world of difference between an attorney and an officer of the peace, in general. Sometimes it may be unethical for an attorney to question an officer of the peace, but it requires some sort of shared interest between the two of them more than merely interest in justice. One would have to build up some sort of conflict of interest between the attorney's supposed role and the matter to which the attorney is questioning the witness that goes beyond similarity in semantics of titles.

 

[MikeyDB]

Entirely valid observations Niflmir

The kernel of truth that rests behind all these concepts is the nature of the combination of reason intellect and emotion that serves as agent to behavior. It's also true that given circumstances where action is required, the absence of action is also product of these notions as well.

 

[Kreskin]

Good points Niflmir. Overall, in various forms, the state of mind of the person of the accused is a major judicial element. The state of mind of the accused means is essentially everything, outside of the physical facts, in criminal court.

 

[MikeyDB]

Kreskin

How do we assertain the state of mind of the accused or anyone else for that matter? Is the 'state of mind' of someone coming out of the latest big screen extravaganda starring Bruce Willis or Arnold Shwartzennegger as the 'hero' in a bloody rage as he kills the 'bad-guys' the same as somone who leaves the theatre next door after watching Bambie?

Is the state of mind of the youngster sitting on a bus playing a new portable video game that awards greater points for killing the bad-guy with a blow to the head that rewards the player with an exploding cranium the same as the state of mind of the person who's listening to music on their Ipod..?

We are product of environment and the 'state of mind' is as fluid as getting off the bus at the wrong stop and finding yourself in the middle of a protest featuring skin-heads looking to encourage hatred for ...well pick an ethnic minority.....

We'd like to believe and I think we've been challenged to believe that identifiable discrete phenomena like neurotransmitter imbalances or testosterone and hormone levels are the agents behind the spectrum of 'state of mind'....

What we don't want to acknowledge is that behaviors that at one time weren't tolerated by communities is now allowed under the aegis of "freedom".....

I'd suggest there's a lot more to the contributory mix that results in 'state of mind' than those we're eager to accept and embrace as substantiation for an altered sense of reality.

 

[Kreskin]

Mikey, determining the state of mind is often not an issue. If someone buys rope at the store, then handcuffs and a gun, then kidnaps and murders someone..well you string together the evidence and the state of mind, for criminal court purposes, becomes apparent. The court system does a pretty good job of it using layers upon layers of evidence, witnesses etc. It's not the state of mind for abstract discussion, it's the state of mind of criminal liability/responsibility.

 

[MikeyDB]

I agree with that analysis but you'd have to admit that its utter simplicity is apparent...

If we differentiate between "murder one" and "second degree murder" on the basis of whether someone has planned and set events into motion with the idea that the target will fall victim to these machinations we preclude those who are responsible for the more subtle forms. I understand what you're saying, but a significant element in todays justice system relies on the anticipated effort of proscecutors and legal systems to be able to adequately prove that events that contributed to the murder or situation will remain unproveable... "I can't recall" or "I don't remember that.." are the grist of the new legal mill. Justice has been made not only two tiered but vulnerable to the manipulation of percpetion and complications that practiced criminals are certainly capable of providing. If there were this simple linear relationship between the hardware store the rope and the body, why do we end up with Karla Homolka cutting deals and paying convicted felons for information in the pursuit of other criminals?

I'm suggesting that other than crimes of passion (not a murder-one event) or crimes of negligence (although arguable) crime has become far more complex in its planning and execution than it has been ever before, and as with many things in life this is both regrettable and entirely predicatable. We have seen the Steven Truscotts and other potentially innocent people incarcerated and sentenced to death on the basis of faulty evidence, contaminated expert testimony...a coroner in Ontario...provision for situations like Munchousens by Proxy, Post Partum Depression and false memories...etc. etc. etc.

The picture you paint of the investigation and logical course of argument is valid in many situations but I'll contend that those are the exceptions as opposed to the rule in modern day criminology and jurisprudence.

 

[Kreskin]

They put people on the stand and it's up to the judge or jury to determine whether they are credible. In many cases it is reasonable not to remember. I can barely remember what I did yesterday. And the law looks at things like reasonableness. Should a 21 year old have known it wasn't right to drive 140 mph in a construction zone? It doesn't matter whether he just played a video game or not, he ought to have known. The onus is on him to change the minds of everyone else.

If anyone has a better idea for a court system...