3 ms·
> Now, not knowing what you’re doing is a crime isn’t a legally sound defense argument, but it does raise serious questions about how we view punishment and tho
by crazypython 6y ago
> Now, not knowing what you’re doing is a crime isn’t a legally sound defense argument, but it does raise serious questions about how we view punishment and those we deem should be punished.
Isn't it a Mens Rea defense?
- jki275 6y agoMany crimes do not require intent, they're strict liability. Some do.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoThat distinction isn't relevant here. She had mens rea -- she knew she was voting. She didn't know she was breaking the law.
- lebuffon 6y agoFascinating to me that it is humanly impossible for any individual to remember ALL the laws yet ignorance of the law is not a defence. :)
- thaumasiotes 6y agoI'm more upset that ignorance of the law IS a defense for police officers, whose job is to know it.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoIt could be, but in order to sign a provisional ballot you have to sign a form that tells you you can't vote as a convicted felon. So even if she honestly didn't read the form (which wouldn't surprise me!) it severely undercuts her argument.
- kjakm 6y agoMens rea is more intention to do the act, not knowledge of criminality. For example intentionally killing someone is murder even if you didn't know murder is a crime (because the act or killing was intended). The mens rea is intention to kill (if you lack the mens rea you end up with manslaughter or something equivalent).