4 ms·
I find this to be a complete crazy take. Even if intent isn’t written into a specific law, the whole system is built to specifically allow intent to be conside
by thrashh 5y ago
I find this to be a complete crazy take.
Even if intent isn’t written into a specific law, the whole system is built to specifically allow intent to be considered in so many stages. Sometimes they don’t even decide to prosecute.
Laws exists specifically to create a functioning society. Laws do not exist for the sake of having laws. Any sane person enforcing any kind of rule understands this.
This take is like programmers getting angry when businesses don’t care about the quality the the code or something, forgetting that the whole reason people hire programmers is to solve business problems, not to write text on a computer. Total miss of the point of the exercise.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> Even if intent isn’t written into a specific law, the whole system is built to specifically allow intent to be considered in so many stages. Mental state (which is much broader than intent, though intent is an aspect of it) is an important consideration for criminal law and most offenses have a required mental state (strict liability offenses are a small minority). And mental state is, yes, considered broadly beyond the formal requirements, too. But to say that “intent is literally the heart of criminal law” is both literally false and substantively misleading.