4 ms·

I am aware of such distinctions but these legal classifications are defined to determine the appropriate punishment not to let someone off the hook. If you kill

by dmfdmf 10y ago

I am aware of such distinctions but these legal classifications are defined to determine the appropriate punishment not to let someone off the hook. If you killed someone because you lost control of your car in the rain on bald tires you don't get a pass because you "didn't mean it". Comey made a recent speech and basically said the evidence shows that Clinton violated the laws regarding the handling of classified material but we aren't going to charge her. If it was due to incompetence or brain seizures or an honest mistake or selling out her country for financial gain, these are separate questions apart from the fact that a crime was committed and that she did it (or was complicit).

djur 10y ago
That isn't true. Most crimes require mens rea of some kind. This can include intent (I'm going to kill that guy with this brick), recklessness (I'm going to toss this brick out the window, who cares if it hits anyone), negligence (I'm going to put this teetering pile of bricks on the windowsill over a busy street, hope nobody knocks it over), and some others. This is true of all kinds of common crimes. If you accidentally enter the wrong house, it's not trespassing. If you accidentally pick up your friend's phone instead of your own, it's not theft. If you get in your car and drive away without realizing a strange kid had gotten into the back seat, it's not kidnapping. These are all acts that only become crimes if the person doing them has a "guilty mind". "Ignorance of the law is no defense" does not speak to intent or mens rea at all. Mens rea is "officer, I hit that guy with my car because I hit a patch of black ice and skidded out of control". An attempted ignorance defense is "I didn't know it was against the law to hit someone with my car." Similarly, "I didn't know this material was classified" and "I didn't know it was illegal to distribute classified material" are very different arguments.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  Another important caveat is that Clinton, as far as we know, hadn't intended to leak or otherwise share classified information. While the server may not have been up to State Department security standards, it was not there with the intent to disseminate classified material to anyone without clearance.

by dmfdmf 10y ago

djur 10y ago

That isn't true. Most crimes require mens rea of some kind. This can include intent (I'm going to kill that guy with this brick), recklessness (I'm going to toss this brick out the window, who cares if it hits anyone), negligence (I'm going to put this teetering pile of bricks on the windowsill over a busy street, hope nobody knocks it over), and some others. This is true of all kinds of common crimes. If you accidentally enter the wrong house, it's not trespassing. If you accidentally pick up your friend's phone instead of your own, it's not theft. If you get in your car and drive away without realizing a strange kid had gotten into the back seat, it's not kidnapping. These are all acts that only become crimes if the person doing them has a "guilty mind". "Ignorance of the law is no defense" does not speak to intent or mens rea at all. Mens rea is "officer, I hit that guy with my car because I hit a patch of black ice and skidded out of control". An attempted ignorance defense is "I didn't know it was against the law to hit someone with my car." Similarly, "I didn't know this material was classified" and "I didn't know it was illegal to distribute classified material" are very different arguments.

ascagnel_ 10y ago
Another important caveat is that Clinton, as far as we know, hadn't intended to leak or otherwise share classified information. While the server may not have been up to State Department security standards, it was not there with the intent to disseminate classified material to anyone without clearance.