Intent and ignorance?

[wisco]

I've heard two different... "criteria" for lack of a better word... when it comes to breaking the law.

One, I've heard that for there to be a crime there has to be "intent" to commit the crime.

On the other hand, I've heard that "ignorance" of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.

Obviously these things conflict eachother in some situations.


For instance... I know it is illegal in my town to shoot a BB gun - but let's say I didn't. My son and I set up some beer cans in the back yard and start plinking away one afternoon. Somehow the police get involved and I am cited for shooting the BB gun.

I had no intention of committing a crime, but I did and was cited.



Would someone mind clarifying?

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Google "levels of culpability."

[PapaBear]

Just because you do not know there is a law against something, but you should be reasonably certain that it may not be the better thing to do, is ignorance.

When you shot the BB gun within a jurisdiction that prohibits such an activity, you were ignorant of the specific law; but, a reasonable person should know that the discharge of any type of weapon may be unlawful except under certain conditions. It was your intent to shoot the weapon even though you were ignorant to the law. Therefore, the two meld into one - your intent to do something unlawful and your ignorance in knowing that law.

[Citicop]

I agree with PapaBear.

You don't have to have the intent to break the law, just to perform whatever action you did.

You MEANT to shoot the BB gun. That's the intent that counts.

-Citicop.

[Samuel]

Look up your criminal statutes/penal codes, definition of crimes, types of crimes, who can commit crimes, etc. Also look up general intent vs specific intent.

[retdetsgt]

Ignorance and intent don't matter much. I may not have intended to go through a stop sign because I was preoccupied with something else, but the violation is exactly the same.

Intent only comes into play when you are differentiating between accidental and intentional.

If I point my gun at you and intentionally shoot you, that's a steeper crime than if I'm careless with my gun (say on a hunting trip) and shoot you. That's why drunk drivers who kill someone in a car accident face manslaughter charges rather than murder. They didn't get behind the wheel of their car with the intention of killing someone. What they did is still a crime, but not as high a level because of the lack of intent.

[phantasm]

Here's a simple exapmle (using the bb gun).

Lets say you INTENTIONALLY shoot out someone's window, but you didn't know it was illegal to do so, you still have the intent, while being ignorant of the law, but that doesn't mean you're excused from the crime due to the ignorance.

As for the violation that someone else mentioned (the stop sign), in NY you only need to have committed the violation, there is no need for intent.

[MikeG]

Each statutory crime can be different for the mental state and either action or inaction that compromises a crime. Generally statutory crimes seem to be construed to promote a form of justice and that absolutes in terms of definition or strict interpretations give way to achieving the objective of the law (i.e. justice) and also prior cases. In most cases ignorance of the statute is not a grounds for defense. One of the reasons for creating a written statute is to provide fair notice to the public that certain actions and inactions are illegal. Ignorance that your actions may constitute an offense can be a defense depending on whether the statute recognizes that as a justification for commiting those acts.

For example, killing a person can have multiple mental states and circumstances. All the way from "not a crime and justified" to the worst possible offense that demands the life of the person who did the killing. The prosecutor is going to read the letter of the law, try to establish what justice would be, review simlar cases, and then see if they can attach the action to requirements of the statute and prosecute. Whether the person knows the variations of crime that come under a homicide is irrelevant. It's more relevant to know his state of mind in terms of his own fear and whether that is a reasonable state of mind (whether he has a culpable mental state). After all that there can still be play within the law in order to promote justice and much of that comes from the common law prinicipal of stare decisis and precedent (or case law). The basic theory is that it's unjust to treat a case differently today than it was treated in the past if the facts and circumstances are similar. I don't know how much it still happens, but "battered wife syndrome" was used as a defense for premeditated murder around the mid-1990's I thin ("Burning Bed" timeframe?). Basically, the killings had all the characteristics of premeditated murder: No immediate threat, planned, executed. But even meeting the letter of the law, they still got lighter sentences or convictions of lessor crime(or got off altogether) in order to promote a sense of justice. I think it has fallen out of favor with defense attornies but it was successful for a time. It gives you an idea about how fluid a statutory interpretation can be.

Other crimes have a very specific requirement that you know your action is undesirable. For example, assault (or battery in some definitions that break them up) is an unwanted touching. It's pretty obvious that a punch to the face is unwanted. But tapping someone on the shoulder isn't assault unless he tells you it's unwanted. Now imagine the gray areas in between. Trespassing is similar. You hop a fence and it's pretty obvious you shouldn't be there. But crossing retDetSgt front lawn probably isn't unless he yells "get off my lawn!".

To use your BB gun example, a statute may be written as:
A person commits "BB gun discharge" if he
1. fires a BB gun within the boundaries of a city or town or;
2. knowingly and intentionally fires or causes to be fired a BB gun within the boundaries of a city or town or;
3. knowingly, intentionally and recklessly or with criminal negligence fires or causes to be fired a BB gun within the boundaries of a city.
B A1 is a violation, A2 is misdemeanor, A3 is a felony, blah blah blah.

No knowledge of statute is required. A1 is not a culpable mental state. A2 is minimum culpable mental state. if you were pulling the trigger you committed it. A3 is a culpable mental state and requires a certain knowledge that your actions are dangerous (or a reasonable person should have known). A1 is dropping the bb gun and it goes off. A2 is shooting paper targets against a suitable backdrop for BB guns. A3 is shooting the apple off your kids head. A1 might be a civil fine, a2 might be misdemeanor, a3 may be felony.


That said, all of that is done way after your interaction with police. You generally shouldn't expect police to judge your "culpable mental state" if they spot a crime. The more pressing need is whether you are a danger to the public or a flight risk or any of a thousand reasons why they want to get you fingerprinted, booked and off the street. If the act defined in the statute occured, you should expect to be arrested. You may have a legitmate defense for your actions, but defenses are usually heard at trial.

There used to be an Arizona statute that required that you first be told about the statute before you could be charged with it. It was the only one where knowledge about the actual law (as opposed to the knowledge of your action) was required. It was stupid law. I can't find it now.

YMMV and this is my interpretation only.

[MikeG]

Here's a simple exapmle (using the bb gun).

Lets say you INTENTIONALLY shoot out someone's window, but you didn't know it was illegal to do so, you still have the intent, while being ignorant of the law, but that doesn't mean you're excused from the crime due to the ignorance.

As for the violation that someone else mentioned (the stop sign), in NY you only need to have committed the violation, there is no need for intent.

Statutes that are written without a required culpable mental state are called "strict liability" statutes and they only require the act be committed.

[retdetsgt]

Each statutory crime can be different for the mental state and either action or inaction that compromises a crime. Generally statutory crimes seem to be construed to promote a form of justice and that absolutes in terms of definition or strict interpretations give way to achieving the objective of the law (i.e. justice) and also prior cases. In most cases ignorance of the statute is not a grounds for defense. One of the reasons for creating a written statute is to provide fair notice to the public that certain actions and inactions are illegal. Ignorance that your actions may constitute an offense can be a defense depending on whether the statute recognizes that as a justification for commiting those acts.

For example, killing a person can have multiple mental states and circumstances. All the way from "not a crime and justified" to the worst possible offense that demands the life of the person who did the killing. The prosecutor is going to read the letter of the law, try to establish what justice would be, review simlar cases, and then see if they can attach the action to requirements of the statute and prosecute. Whether the person knows the variations of crime that come under a homicide is irrelevant. It's more relevant to know his state of mind in terms of his own fear and whether that is a reasonable state of mind (whether he has a culpable mental state). After all that there can still be play within the law in order to promote justice and much of that comes from the common law prinicipal of stare decisis and precedent (or case law). The basic theory is that it's unjust to treat a case differently today than it was treated in the past if the facts and circumstances are similar. I don't know how much it still happens, but "battered wife syndrome" was used as a defense for premeditated murder around the mid-1990's I thin ("Burning Bed" timeframe?). Basically, the killings had all the characteristics of premeditated murder: No immediate threat, planned, executed. But even meeting the letter of the law, they still got lighter sentences or convictions of lessor crime(or got off altogether) in order to promote a sense of justice. I think it has fallen out of favor with defense attornies but it was successful for a time. It gives you an idea about how fluid a statutory interpretation can be.

Other crimes have a very specific requirement that you know your action is undesirable. For example, assault (or battery in some definitions that break them up) is an unwanted touching. It's pretty obvious that a punch to the face is unwanted. But tapping someone on the shoulder isn't assault unless he tells you it's unwanted. Now imagine the gray areas in between. Trespassing is similar. You hop a fence and it's pretty obvious you shouldn't be there. But crossing retDetSgt front lawn probably isn't unless he yells "get off my lawn!".

To use your BB gun example, a statute may be written as:
A person commits "BB gun discharge" if he
1. knowingly and intentionally fires or causes to be fired a BB gun within the boundaries of a city or town or;
2. knowingly, intentionally and recklessly or with criminal negligence fires or causes to be fired a BB gun within the boundaries of a city.
B A1 is a misdemeanor, A2 is a felony, blah blah blah.

No knowledge of statute is required. A1 is a minumum culpable mental state. if you were pulling the trigger you committed it. A2 requires a certain knowledge that your actions are dangerous (or a reasonable person should have known). A1 is shooting paper targets against a suitable backdrop for BB guns. A2 is shooting the apple off your kids head.

That said, all of that is done way after your interaction with police. You generally shouldn't expect police to judge your "culpable mental state" if they spot a crime. The more pressing need is whether you are a danger to the public or a flight risk or any of a thousand reasons why they want to get you fingerprinted, booked and off the street. If the act defined in the statute occured, you should expect to be arrested. You may have a legitmate defense for your actions, but defenses are usually heard at trial.

There used to be an Arizona statute that required that you first be told about the statute before you could be charged with it. It was the only one where knowledge about the actual law (as opposed to the knowledge of your action) was required. It was stupid law. I can't find it now.

YMMV and this is my interpretation only.

Wow, a ten dollar answer to a 25 cent question......

[MikeG]

Wow, a ten dollar answer to a 25 cent question......

I know. I get carried away. That's why I can't be lawyer. it takes me 2 hours to write a 10 minute brief.

[MikeG]

It's illegal to shoot a BB gun?

depends.

[txinvestigator1]

Texas has four mental states of culpability;

Sec. 6.03. DEFINITIONS OF CULPABLE MENTAL STATES. (a) A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.

(b) A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.

(c) A person acts recklessly, or is reckless, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

(d) A person acts with criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.

[MikeG]

I've heard two different... "criteria" for lack of a better word... when it comes to breaking the law.

One, I've heard that for there to be a crime there has to be "intent" to commit the crime.

On the other hand, I've heard that "ignorance" of the law is not an excuse for breaking the law.

Obviously these things conflict eachother in some situations.


For instance... I know it is illegal in my town to shoot a BB gun - but let's say I didn't. My son and I set up some beer cans in the back yard and start plinking away one afternoon. Somehow the police get involved and I am cited for shooting the BB gun.

I had no intention of committing a crime, but I did and was cited.



Would someone mind clarifying?

0.25 answer.

If the code/statute was written as a 'strict liability' statute, no culpable mental state is required, just that the act occured.. usually this means its a fine or some other low level crime.

If the code was written as needing a culpable mental state, then you need to meet the mental state of mind conditions in the statute.

Bottom line, read the statute/code and see what it says. Key words are negligent, knowingly, intentionally, etc, etc.

Ignorance that the combination of mental state and act constitutes a crime is not a defense.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Christ Almighty!!!! How many ways can 1 guy answer a thread?!?! I think we're gonna see a record.

Next you'll start quoting yourself and arguing with your previous answers.