3 ms·

The parent was correct, and you are changing to a definition used in a statute that was never enacted. The top description on the Wikipedia article says Mens R

by nickff 6y ago

The parent was correct, and you are changing to a definition used in a statute that was never enacted. The top description on the Wikipedia article says Mens Rea is "the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed."

burkaman 6y ago
Clearly I'm not a lawyer so I'm not confident in this, you might be right. Is mens rea ever used that way in practice? I don't understand how you could prove that in court. A text message saying "I'm gonna kill that guy" might be evidence of intent, but nobody ever says "I'm gonna kill that guy, thereby committing a felony under US law". How could you possibly prove that somebody knew an action would be illegal? Would you allow the possibility that Wikipedia is wrong? I can't find any other reference that talks about knowledge of the law itself, and it logically doesn't make any sense. Also, "mens rea" itself is just a vague Latin phrase, so the only meaningful "definition" is how it's actually applied in the world.
- hnick 6y ago
  > How could you possibly prove that somebody knew an action would be illegal? I'm far from an expert but I think usually the "reasonable" keyword applies to such things in law. A "reasonable" person would know killing is wrong - and they'll say you mightn't, too bad, pay attention to society. A "reasonable" person might not know some obscure tax law they broke by mistake so they have to make it right and pay it back, but not be punished too harshly otherwise. OTOH you'd expect an accountant to know so you could infer intent and they could be handled more sternly.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
Where are you getting your information? Compare the mens rea requirements set forth in the New York State Penal Code (§15.05): (quoted in full) > Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states. > The following definitions are applicable to this chapter: > 1. "Intentionally." A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such conduct. > 2. "Knowingly." A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. > 3. "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto. > 4. "Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. As you can see, none of these care whether the person knows that producing the result in question will break the law. This is far and away the norm for mens rea; requirements of knowledge of the law are vanishingly rare. Note also that these are exactly the same categories as defined by the Model Penal Code. (Strict liability excluded.) The only change is that the word "purposefully" in the MPC was changed to "intentionally". So you're not even right that this is "a definition used in a statute that was never enacted".
- nickff 6y ago
  My understanding is that New York did adopt a variant of the Model Penal Code, though the United States did not, and neither has any other common-law country. The meaning of Mens Rea is not dictated by the state of New York.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > The meaning of Mens Rea is not dictated by the state of New York. The New York Penal Code doesn't attempt to define, or use, the term mens rea. Rather, it defines levels of "mental culpability" which are themselves referenced in the definitions of crimes. That is what mens rea means. It seems increasingly clear that you don't yourself know the meaning of the term, and you're certainly not more able to dictate a meaning than the state of New York is. But feel free to compare this Australian legal advice: > Mens rea offences are offences which, to be proven, must demonstrate an accused both committed the physical act (actus reus) as well as had a guilty mind – that is, the intention to commit the offence (mens rea). （ https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/honest-and-reasonable-mistake-of-fact/ https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/honest-and-rea... ) Australia treats the term mens rea in exactly the same way the state of New York does, by defining different levels of it and using those levels to define crimes. Compare these two crimes defined by the Crimes Act 1958 of Victoria: > A person who, without lawful excuse, intentionally causes serious injury to another person is guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: Level 3 imprisonment (20 years maximum). [I.4.16] > A person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly causes serious injury to another person is guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: Level 4 imprisonment (15 years maximum). [I.4.17]
munk-a 6y ago
To clarify - Mens Rea is not the intent to go against criminal code, it is the intent to commit an action which would result in an outcome the criminal code penalizes. You can be entirely ignorant of legal standards and still act with intent. This is to separate the following two scenarios since I think it'll be pretty clear to folks that the justification of punishment is different in the following: 1. A person pushes a button on a blank wall and someone is shot as a result. 2. A person squeezes the trigger of a firearm while that firearm is pointed at someone. Other than the classic "Don't go around pushing big red buttons" the person in the first scenario is not morally culpable for their actions due to a lack of knowledge of what might follow from their button pushing. This is also the reason why actions like trying to shoot someone and having the gun jam tend not to be distinguished under the law from actually shooting someone (when such a situation can be identified). Your intent in squeezing the trigger was to shoot someone - the fact that the universe happened to intercede and prevent your action was something you could not foresee.

by nickff 6y ago

burkaman 6y ago

Clearly I'm not a lawyer so I'm not confident in this, you might be right. Is mens rea ever used that way in practice? I don't understand how you could prove that in court. A text message saying "I'm gonna kill that guy" might be evidence of intent, but nobody ever says "I'm gonna kill that guy, thereby committing a felony under US law". How could you possibly prove that somebody knew an action would be illegal? Would you allow the possibility that Wikipedia is wrong? I can't find any other reference that talks about knowledge of the law itself, and it logically doesn't make any sense. Also, "mens rea" itself is just a vague Latin phrase, so the only meaningful "definition" is how it's actually applied in the world.

hnick 6y ago
> How could you possibly prove that somebody knew an action would be illegal? I'm far from an expert but I think usually the "reasonable" keyword applies to such things in law. A "reasonable" person would know killing is wrong - and they'll say you mightn't, too bad, pay attention to society. A "reasonable" person might not know some obscure tax law they broke by mistake so they have to make it right and pay it back, but not be punished too harshly otherwise. OTOH you'd expect an accountant to know so you could infer intent and they could be handled more sternly.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

Where are you getting your information? Compare the mens rea requirements set forth in the New York State Penal Code (§15.05): (quoted in full) > Culpability; definitions of culpable mental states. > The following definitions are applicable to this chapter: > 1. "Intentionally." A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such conduct. > 2. "Knowingly." A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. > 3. "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts recklessly with respect thereto. > 4. "Criminal negligence." A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. As you can see, none of these care whether the person knows that producing the result in question will break the law. This is far and away the norm for mens rea; requirements of knowledge of the law are vanishingly rare. Note also that these are exactly the same categories as defined by the Model Penal Code. (Strict liability excluded.) The only change is that the word "purposefully" in the MPC was changed to "intentionally". So you're not even right that this is "a definition used in a statute that was never enacted".

nickff 6y ago
My understanding is that New York did adopt a variant of the Model Penal Code, though the United States did not, and neither has any other common-law country. The meaning of Mens Rea is not dictated by the state of New York.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > The meaning of Mens Rea is not dictated by the state of New York. The New York Penal Code doesn't attempt to define, or use, the term mens rea. Rather, it defines levels of "mental culpability" which are themselves referenced in the definitions of crimes. That is what mens rea means. It seems increasingly clear that you don't yourself know the meaning of the term, and you're certainly not more able to dictate a meaning than the state of New York is. But feel free to compare this Australian legal advice: > Mens rea offences are offences which, to be proven, must demonstrate an accused both committed the physical act (actus reus) as well as had a guilty mind – that is, the intention to commit the offence (mens rea). （ https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/honest-and-reasonable-mistake-of-fact/ https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/honest-and-rea... ) Australia treats the term mens rea in exactly the same way the state of New York does, by defining different levels of it and using those levels to define crimes. Compare these two crimes defined by the Crimes Act 1958 of Victoria: > A person who, without lawful excuse, intentionally causes serious injury to another person is guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: Level 3 imprisonment (20 years maximum). [I.4.16] > A person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly causes serious injury to another person is guilty of an indictable offence. Penalty: Level 4 imprisonment (15 years maximum). [I.4.17]

munk-a 6y ago

To clarify - Mens Rea is not the intent to go against criminal code, it is the intent to commit an action which would result in an outcome the criminal code penalizes. You can be entirely ignorant of legal standards and still act with intent. This is to separate the following two scenarios since I think it'll be pretty clear to folks that the justification of punishment is different in the following: 1. A person pushes a button on a blank wall and someone is shot as a result. 2. A person squeezes the trigger of a firearm while that firearm is pointed at someone. Other than the classic "Don't go around pushing big red buttons" the person in the first scenario is not morally culpable for their actions due to a lack of knowledge of what might follow from their button pushing. This is also the reason why actions like trying to shoot someone and having the gun jam tend not to be distinguished under the law from actually shooting someone (when such a situation can be identified). Your intent in squeezing the trigger was to shoot someone - the fact that the universe happened to intercede and prevent your action was something you could not foresee.