4 ms·
I find it surprising to the extreme that a person like Stallmann, supposedly smart and well versed in legal matters lacks the understanding of how the legal sys
by glofish 7y ago
I find it surprising to the extreme that a person like Stallmann, supposedly smart and well versed in legal matters lacks the understanding of how the legal system works:
"Unintentional crime is still a crime."
Unwittiness in committing a crime is, at best, a mitigating circumstance, that does not justify or excuse the conduct.
The second issue is that does not matter what you and I (or Stallman) think. All that matters is what the law says - it is a crime when the law says so - we can't be going around redefining laws so that they don't apply when it does not suit us. The most one can hope for is to have a law redefined in a court of law (precedents, interpretations etc).
- cameldrv 7y agoSome unintentional crimes are crimes, but many, maybe most require intent. This is called mens rea and it’s so important you’ll learn it in your high school introduction to the law course.
- glofish 7y agoActually what we learn (or should learn in high school) is that pleading ignorance: "I did not know this or that" is a terrible starting argument for many crimes. This is what I was referring to in my observation. Stallman should know better than to argue ignorance. Beyond that, the law is complex and generalizations (which I myself did) run the risk of oversimplifying realities. I was specifically referring to this case, where Stallman argues that his friend was just misled. I believe that argument not just "tone deaf" but actually wrong.