Intent and ignorance?

[CitizenX]

Yeah but what happened to his case? The law doesn't say "Don't throw a rock"

If the law says not to throw a rock at a vehicle, and he didn't throw it at a vehicle but rather just threw a rock at an empty street I doubt he would get convicted.

But then, maybe the law should be changed to say don't throw a rock at a street.

Anyways I was just thinking of an example to demonstrate lack of intent. Another might be, if a law said don't booby trap an apartment because the property manager has the right to enter. And you left something dangerous on the ground and the person slipped on it and hurt himself.

[greg72982]

Yeah but what happened to his case? The law doesn't say "Don't throw a rock"

If the law says not to throw a rock at a vehicle, and he didn't throw it at a vehicle but rather just threw a rock at an empty street I doubt he would get convicted.

But then, maybe the law should be changed to say don't throw a rock at a street.

Anyways I was just thinking of an example to demonstrate lack of intent. Another might be, if a law said don't booby trap an apartment because the property manager has the right to enter. And you left something dangerous on the ground and the person slipped on it and hurt himself.

He plead out to all misdemeanors. Lucky for him the victim she was content with the plea deal. The almost went blind in her right eye.


Our law essentially does say "Don't throw a rock at the street."

§ 2707. Propulsion of missiles into an occupied vehicle or onto
a roadway.
(a) Occupied vehicles.--Whoever intentionally throws, shoots
or propels a rock, stone, brick, or piece of iron, steel or
other like metal, or any deadly or dangerous missile, or fire
bomb, into a vehicle or instrumentality of public transportation
that is occupied by one or more persons commits a misdemeanor of
the first degree.
(b) Roadways.--Whoever intentionally throws, shoots, drops
or causes to be propelled any solid object, from an overpass or
any other location adjacent to or on a roadway, onto or toward
said roadway shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second
degree.

[CitizenX]

Oh thats different. Where I live its a "Terroristic act" if you throw something at a car. There might be another law against throwing things at streets though - not sure.

[MikeG]

I think it's been covered before. Three separate things.
1. knowledge of the law (lack of generally not a defense to a crime)
2. Mental culpability (my state has four, usually required for crime, criminal negligence would most likely be culpable level in inadvertant rock throwing example above, ymmv)
3. Whether the crime requires metal culpability (almost all crimes require some level of mental culpability but some do not. ymmv, but think of statutory rape or felony murder rule for serious crimes. You don't have to have culpable mental state for murder to be convicted of felony murder. You can believe with all your heart she was 18, and she may have told you she was 18, but if she's fifteen, only the act is required for crime, not your mental state - again local laws vary though. traffic laws are also sometimes written so only the act is required, not the mental state. YMMV greatly)

[CitizenX]

Yeah. It seems like there is clear reasoning behind those differences in laws. Sleeping with a minor is so bad that we want everyone to make damn sure of the person's age before sleeping with them. So intent is irrelevant. Throwing rocks is likely to result in something bad happening, just like randomly firing a weapon might. Thus those acts are criminally negligent.

But what if a girl actually looks older, had her own apartment paid for by her parents, and had a fake id (which the guy checked just to be sure) and still was under age.

Or what if a guy was blindfolded and asked to press a button as part of a game, but the button launched a rock at a highway and the person had no clue.

The ultimate law would describe the most general and agreed upon rules of behavior such that everyone could apply them to their situations and would know what line they could or could not cross after being alerted to the need to follow the law to avoid punishment.

They would be unaware once and then know they better learn the law to make sure they don't do anything illegal again, and thus would never break the law again.

Instead it seems like people are frequently caught unaware that doing something was illegal, and we have to punish them unexpectedly not once, but every time we need to make a clarification on something we said before.

[Citicop]

I think you are really missing the point here (among other places).

The real reason that ignorance of the law is no excuse is that it is impossible for the government to disprove ignorance.

If it were allowed, then every criminal in the country would get to court, say "I didn't know that was a law" and get released.

You can't prove what a person was or was not aware of at the time of his conduct. The government neatly avoids this by making sure that it does not matter if you knew your conduct was illegal; if you intended to perform the action, then you can be convicted.

-Citicop.

[CitizenX]

But even if you could prove that, the next claim by the defendant would be "I didn't know it was that serious". Which is really the same type of claim, since many things are not against the law that people are not fond of.

[Citicop]

That is my whole point.

If it is illegal to do "x" action, and you purposely do "x" then the courts do not care if you didn't know it was illegal, or if you "didn't think it was that serious."

If you violate the law, then you can be convicted. Your knowledge of (or subjective opinion of) the law does not matter at all.

-Citicop.

[CitizenX]

So then is it punishing the person for their action (that they did not even know was against the law) or just making them aware that they better not do it again, because society can not afford to let them do it, and better make effort to become aware of everything else society can't allow them to do because they won't get leniency for not knowing?

[Curt581]

Your knowledge of (or subjective opinion of) the law does not matter at all.

-Citicop.

But..but.. it does!

It's... Him.

He has different standards of common sense than others do.

His opinion counts.



Lord, save us from teenagers that think the sun, moon and stars revolve around them.

I see the ban clouds gathering.

[Citicop]

So then is it punishing the person for their action (that they did not even know was against the law) or just making them aware that they better not do it again, because society can not afford to let them do it?

This is the same thing you were talking about in the other thread. The answer has not changed.

1.) The police do not punish people. That is done by the correctional system after conviction by the court system.

2.) And in reality it's both. There are consequences for people's actions. Society decides that certain behavior is not permitted. People who break those laws are punished to modify their future behavior and at the same time removed from society for a period of time to prevent them from repeating that behavior which is detrimental to everyone.

-Citicop.

[MikeG]

But what if a girl actually looks older, had her own apartment paid for by her parents, and had a fake id (which the guy checked just to be sure) and still was under age.

That's the point. In some jurisdictions, statutory rape is written as strict liability or only the action is required, NOT a culpable mental state. Criminal strict liability arose from worker safety laws and that's where you find most of them, but statutory rape is an exception in some jurisdictions. It does not matter whether you had a "guilty mind" (even lacking the lowest amount of mental culpability. YMMV on what is required for statutory rape.

Or what if a guy was blindfolded and asked to press a button as part of a game, but the button launched a rock at a highway and the person had no clue.

Rock throwing is not a strict liability law in most jurisdictions. The act and thought have to be there for a crime. Keep in mind that intentionally throwing a rock into the street can meet a culpable mental state for guilt regardless of if you intended to hit a car. Recklessness is not a defense. It's the difference between throwing a rock and having one kicked up by your tires. Your decision to intentionally throw a rock in the street is, at a minimum, a reckless voluntary act that puts someone elses person or property at risk. Certainly it's different than throwing a rock AT a car and most likely there is distinction in punishment but not guilt of crime.

The ultimate law would describe the most general and agreed upon rules of behavior such that everyone could apply them to their situations and would know what line they could or could not cross after being alerted to the need to follow the law to avoid punishment.

Don't be stupid. Don't be evil. Don't risk/take/destroy life, limb or property of other people. That's basically it. The laws just name them.

They would be unaware once and then know they better learn the law to make sure they don't do anything illegal again, and thus would never break the law again.

If you are completely unaware that the actions you do are wrong or dangerous then you should not be in society. Most of the things that you cite, like rock throwing without intending to hit a car, are things people know could result in a injury or damage to property. If you know that and you do it, it's generally illegal. It's not rocket science. The names we give the laws are just for the uniformity of punishment and application.

Instead it seems like people are frequently caught unaware that doing something was illegal, and we have to punish them unexpectedly not once, but every time we need to make a clarification on something we said before.

No, they are caught not knowing the name of the law they broke. Most people know or should know what they are doing is wrong at a most basic level. That's the definition of culpable mental state. If you know that you shouldn't throw rocks in the street because it COULD be dangerous, that's a crime. Most likely it's a crime regardless of whether you cause damage or injury. It's unreasonable for you to take that level of risk for the reward it generates.

[CitizenX]

That's the point. In some jurisdictions, statutory rape is written as strict liability or only the action is required, NOT a culpable mental state. Criminal strict liability arose from worker safety laws and that's where you find most of them, but statutory rape is an exception in some jurisdictions. It does not matter whether you had a "guilty mind" (even lacking the lowest amount of mental culpability. YMMV on what is required for statutory rape.

..

Don't be stupid. Don't be evil. Don't risk/take/destroy life, limb or property of other people. That's basically it. The laws just name them.
..

.

Yes I get that technically statutory rape doesn't require the person to have known the person was underage. But is punishing someone who cards all potential mates who look under 40 to make sure they are over the legal sexing age, but then is fooled by forged documents really the spirit of the law? If that person could be fooled, then anyone could. Maybe your wife was secretly 16 when you got married!

If all laws could be simplified to that, we wouldn't need a legal system. We have one because real life is more complicated than that, and we cannot completely rely on the police to handle all matters of safety and fairness to one another. People are evil all the time without ever breaking the law - they lie, cheat etc to get what they want at the expense of others. If a person threatens you when the police are not nearby, you cannot reasonably rely on the police to protect your immediate safety. If a person does something that unintentionally places you, your property or your loved ones in danger, and there is no law against it you are placed in a situation where you must confront the person about it. etc etc

Law is no simple matter.

[CitizenX]

That's the point. In some jurisdictions, statutory rape is written as strict liability or only the action is required, NOT a culpable mental state. Criminal strict liability arose from worker safety laws and that's where you find most of them, but statutory rape is an exception in some jurisdictions. It does not matter whether you had a "guilty mind" (even lacking the lowest amount of mental culpability. YMMV on what is required for statutory rape.

..

Don't be stupid. Don't be evil. Don't risk/take/destroy life, limb or property of other people. That's basically it. The laws just name them.
..

.

Yes I get that technically statutory rape doesn't require the person to have known the person was underage. But is punishing someone who cards all potential mates who look under 40 to make sure they are over the legal sexing age, but then is fooled by forged documents really the spirit of the law? If that person could be fooled, then anyone could. Maybe your wife was secretly 16 when you got married!

If all laws could be simplified to that, we wouldn't need a legal system. We have one because real life is more complicated than that, and we cannot completely rely on the police to handle all matters of safety and fairness to one another. People are evil all the time without ever breaking the law - they lie, cheat etc to get what they want at the expense of others. If a person threatens you when the police are not nearby, you cannot reasonably rely on the police to protect your immediate safety. If a person does something that unintentionally places you, your property or your loved ones in danger, and there is no law against it you are placed in a situation where you must confront the person about it. etc etc

Law is no simple matter.

[Citicop]

My state says that if you thoght someone was 17 or older, and that turns out not to be true, it is an affirmative defense to the charge. If you can introduce convincing evidence that a reasonable person would have made the same mistake, you get acquitted at trial.

This defense is not usable if the person was 13 years old or younger, however.

It's almost like the people who deal with laws all the time thought of this already... maybe you aren't the avant garde genius you thought you were...

-Citicop.