5 ms·

That's the whole point of a legal(criminal) judgement! The only thing that matters is your intention. Your intention is what the prosecution needs to prove and

That's the whole point of a legal(criminal) judgement! The only thing that matters is your intention. Your intention is what the prosecution needs to prove and you need to defend against their accusation. You can literally kill anyone and get away with it if the prosecution can't prove your intent has either negligence or premeditation and you were not intending to kill in a way approved by law (e.g.: did the soldier intend to kill his enemy within rules of engagement or did he intend to kill the enemy out of personal need for vengeance or hatred)

edoo 7y ago
Usually the action is a crime and the intent scales the crime. If you accidentally kill someone due to negligence that is manslaughter. If you intended to do it that is murder.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  As I replied to a different comment,negligence is proven which means the person intended to act in negligence. Manslaughter won't hold up if the person did their due dilligence as would a "reasonable" person in that situation would. Any crime at all requires criminal intent.
levythe 7y ago
An voluntary or involuntary manslaughter conviction may be less severe a sentence, but it's hardly getting away with it.
- wbl 7y ago
  Drive a car and there will be no penalty.
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    In the UK: If you kill somebody by purposefully driving into them, even if the prosecutors can't prove whether you intended them to die or just be severely injured: Murder. If you _try_ to kill somebody with your car but you fail: Attempted Murder. If you were just trying to "scare" them, or if you weren't on a road at all and they died "by mistake": Manslaughter If you inadvertently kill somebody while driving drunk: Causing Death by Careless Driving while Under the Influence of drink or drugs If you were so very bad at driving that it should have been obvious that you might kill someone: Causing Death by Dangerous Driving or Gross Negligence Manslaughter. If you were just bad at driving: Causing Death by Careless Driving. Of course if your husband is an American spook you can just lie and then hurry aboard a flight home before anybody realises where you went...
- ffsxcg 7y ago
  Still requires criminal intent
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Manslaughter means neglect was proven,intentional neglect:intent.
narag 7y ago
That's the whole point of a legal(criminal) judgement! The only thing that matters is your intention. That's not correct and in a very obvious way for anyone that pays a little attention to news. There are many factors that count.
- badrabbit 7y ago
  Factors to prove or disprove intent? Care to list other factors?
  - symkat 7y ago
    "Strict Liability As Applied to Criminal Law In criminal law, strict liability is generally limited to minor offenses. Criminal law classifies strict liability as one of five possible mentes reae (mental states) that a defendant may have in pursuit of the crime. The other four are "acting knowingly," "acting purposely," "acting with recklessness," and "acting with negligence." The mens rea of strict liability typically results in more lenient punishments than the other four mentes reae. Typically in criminal law, the defendant's awareness of what he is doing would not negate a strict liability mens rea (for example, being in possession of drugs will typically result in criminal liability, regardless of whether the defendant knows that he is in possession of the drugs)." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability
    - badrabbit 7y ago
      That means the person is liable for their mental state correct? As in they could have taken actions to prevent that situation but they intentionally chose not to? With possession laws and statutory rape for example, the liability is that a reasonable person is expected by law to take steps to prevent their posession of co trolled substance or in case of statutory rape to discover the age of their partner. Intent does not need to be proven because the law (controversialy) defines the action to be sufficient proof of criminal intent. Case in point: a mentally handicapped person or a small child cannot be convicted of these crimes, even under strict liability because they are incapable of criminal intent(and therefore criminal liability). even with intent or strict liability identical to that of a sane reasonable person,their inability to reason sufficiently means their intent is not considered criminal. I say that as argument that if strict liability has nothing to do with intent then inability to reason is irrelevant,because if for example mental handicap exempts a person of strict liability,it is because they are not behaving with reason and awareness of their actions and intent right? Or if someone (say a policeman) throws a bag of cocaine at you and you catch it,are you liable under strict liability? (Not being rhetorical,Honestly curious) Strict liability does mean intent does not need to be proven but only because the law defines the action sufficient proof of criminal intent. If you can defend against this "proof" ,will you still be liable? I mean, it is my understanding that if you prove someone planted drugs to frame you or that your sexual partner showed fraudulent evidence (fake ID for example) of their age you will not be held liable, is that not the case?

edoo 7y ago

Usually the action is a crime and the intent scales the crime. If you accidentally kill someone due to negligence that is manslaughter. If you intended to do it that is murder.

badrabbit 7y ago
As I replied to a different comment,negligence is proven which means the person intended to act in negligence. Manslaughter won't hold up if the person did their due dilligence as would a "reasonable" person in that situation would. Any crime at all requires criminal intent.

levythe 7y ago

An voluntary or involuntary manslaughter conviction may be less severe a sentence, but it's hardly getting away with it.

wbl 7y ago
Drive a car and there will be no penalty.
- tialaramex 7y ago
  In the UK: If you kill somebody by purposefully driving into them, even if the prosecutors can't prove whether you intended them to die or just be severely injured: Murder. If you _try_ to kill somebody with your car but you fail: Attempted Murder. If you were just trying to "scare" them, or if you weren't on a road at all and they died "by mistake": Manslaughter If you inadvertently kill somebody while driving drunk: Causing Death by Careless Driving while Under the Influence of drink or drugs If you were so very bad at driving that it should have been obvious that you might kill someone: Causing Death by Dangerous Driving or Gross Negligence Manslaughter. If you were just bad at driving: Causing Death by Careless Driving. Of course if your husband is an American spook you can just lie and then hurry aboard a flight home before anybody realises where you went...
ffsxcg 7y ago
Still requires criminal intent
badrabbit 7y ago
Manslaughter means neglect was proven,intentional neglect:intent.

narag 7y ago

That's the whole point of a legal(criminal) judgement! The only thing that matters is your intention. That's not correct and in a very obvious way for anyone that pays a little attention to news. There are many factors that count.

badrabbit 7y ago
Factors to prove or disprove intent? Care to list other factors?
- symkat 7y ago
  "Strict Liability As Applied to Criminal Law In criminal law, strict liability is generally limited to minor offenses. Criminal law classifies strict liability as one of five possible mentes reae (mental states) that a defendant may have in pursuit of the crime. The other four are "acting knowingly," "acting purposely," "acting with recklessness," and "acting with negligence." The mens rea of strict liability typically results in more lenient punishments than the other four mentes reae. Typically in criminal law, the defendant's awareness of what he is doing would not negate a strict liability mens rea (for example, being in possession of drugs will typically result in criminal liability, regardless of whether the defendant knows that he is in possession of the drugs)." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability
  - badrabbit 7y ago
    That means the person is liable for their mental state correct? As in they could have taken actions to prevent that situation but they intentionally chose not to? With possession laws and statutory rape for example, the liability is that a reasonable person is expected by law to take steps to prevent their posession of co trolled substance or in case of statutory rape to discover the age of their partner. Intent does not need to be proven because the law (controversialy) defines the action to be sufficient proof of criminal intent. Case in point: a mentally handicapped person or a small child cannot be convicted of these crimes, even under strict liability because they are incapable of criminal intent(and therefore criminal liability). even with intent or strict liability identical to that of a sane reasonable person,their inability to reason sufficiently means their intent is not considered criminal. I say that as argument that if strict liability has nothing to do with intent then inability to reason is irrelevant,because if for example mental handicap exempts a person of strict liability,it is because they are not behaving with reason and awareness of their actions and intent right? Or if someone (say a policeman) throws a bag of cocaine at you and you catch it,are you liable under strict liability? (Not being rhetorical,Honestly curious) Strict liability does mean intent does not need to be proven but only because the law defines the action sufficient proof of criminal intent. If you can defend against this "proof" ,will you still be liable? I mean, it is my understanding that if you prove someone planted drugs to frame you or that your sexual partner showed fraudulent evidence (fake ID for example) of their age you will not be held liable, is that not the case?