3 ms·
IANAL My understanding is that proof of intent to break the law is not the legal standard needed to move forward with prosecution[0]. It's being used as cover
by graedus 9y ago
IANAL
My understanding is that proof of intent to break the law is not the legal standard needed to move forward with prosecution[0]. It's being used as cover for insufficient political will to prosecute a powerful protected class - Wall Street executives.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/199634380f3d2631296 https://www.leagle.com/decision/199634380f3d2631296 § II A
- tomalpha 9y agoIANAL too, but believe that in common law systems like the U.K. and most of the U.S. that intent is required. In the jargon: Mens Rea is required in addition to Actus Rea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea That isn’t always true for certain laws that create “strict liability” which removes the requirement to prove intent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability