 |
 |
Is mens rea a form of thought police?
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
The mens rea is the Latin term for "guilty mind" used in the criminal law. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".
Isn't this a form of thought police? How would "hate crimes" be any different from this?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
mens rea = intent
hate crimes = motive
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
Do you think Dick Cheney should have gone to prison for assault? He shot a guy, after all.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
How do you know for sure what Dick Cheney was thinking at the time he pulled the trigger?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BRussell 
Do you think Dick Cheney should have gone to prison for assault? He shot a guy, after all.
Exactly. That's the difference between mens rea and a thought police: all mens rea covers is whether a person actually intended to do what they did. In the case of Dick Cheney, he didn't intend to shoot anybody; it was an accident. This is why he had the actus reus (guilty act), but not the mens rea (guilty mind), of assault with a deadly weapon. Since he didn't have both, he was not charged: the law doesn't hold people responsible for accidents.
Motive goes a step beyond mens rea by attempting to describe why someone intended to commit a crime. This is where hate-crimes legislation comes in: it distinguishes between a hate crime and an ordinary crime by motive. Before motive can even be considered, however, mens rea has to already be established. The cleanest way to establish such a thing would probably be to first convict someone of a crime, and then hold a separate hearing to establish whether that crime was a hate crime and modify the sentence accordingly. Not that I support hate-crime legislation in the first place -quite the opposite- but if it must happen then this would not only be the cleanest way to go about it, but also the most honest: using a separate hearing essentially puts someone on trial for what they believe, which is the real point of this legislation.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Millennium
Exactly. That's the difference between mens rea and a thought police: all mens rea covers is whether a person actually intended to do what they did. In the case of Dick Cheney, he didn't intend to shoot anybody; it was an accident. This is why he had the actus reus (guilty act), but not the mens rea (guilty mind), of assault with a deadly weapon. Since he didn't have both, he was not charged: the law doesn't hold people responsible for accidents.
Couldn't he still be charged with gross negligence?
Or would Cheney's friend need to sue him?
|
|
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status:
Offline
|
|
I would guess Cheney has some kind of immunity, so he couldn't be charged with anything.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status:
Offline
|
|
Funny how everyone assumes Cheney didn't mean to do it.
Did the thought police conduct a full investigation?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2003
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by TETENAL
I would guess Cheney has some kind of immunity, so he couldn't be charged with anything.
It's far more likely that since it was his friend and an accident, his friend just declined to pursue any action against Cheney. There was probably also some sort of restitution on the behalf of Cheney in order for the guy to not make a big fuss and to try to stay off the news.
If your friend shot you in the face by accident, and it only required a day in the hospital, wold you push for criminal action?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Couldn't he still be charged with gross negligence?
Only if they could prove that he hadn't taken reasonable safety precautions.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy
Funny how everyone assumes Cheney didn't mean to do it.
That's presumption of innocence at work.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Teaneck, NJ
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think he would have had to sue for civil and not criminal claims. Only the DA can choose to charge someone with a crime.
Mens rea is not thought police at all. It makes sense and is applied fairly I think. Considering all the insanity defenses that go around it anyway.
|
|
AT&T iPhone 5S and 6; 13" MBP; MDD G4.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Exactly. But we all know how America loves its civil law.... 
greg
|
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top