2 ms·

He is a direct beneficiary though. Whether that is relevant in immigration law, I don't know, but it certainly is in other areas of criminal law (e.g. receiving

He is a direct beneficiary though. Whether that is relevant in immigration law, I don't know, but it certainly is in other areas of criminal law (e.g. receiving stolen property, soliciting murder etcetera).

bilekas 4y ago
> receiving stolen property Being in possession of stolen property is not necessarily a crime. If you buy something on eBay that was stolen without your knowledge you're not going to get charged. You may have to return it and be out of pocket probably, but not crime. As for soliciting murder that's a crime. There is an intent there. > He is a direct beneficiary though. What if instead of his lief today he was forced into the sex slave ? Would you still consider him a beneficiary ?
- brigandish 4y ago
  If we're looking for mens rea then the moment a child is over 10, if they don't confess to being an illegal immigrant then they know what they're doing. As to your other question, they would be a victim as they are a slave. Return to their country of origin should still be favoured though (but not mandatory). If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? As such I'm not sure why that's relevant. Pointing out that something can become complex does not mean that the simpler cases we're actually discussing can't be solved.
  - garyfirestorm 4y ago
    > If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? Are you forgetting that he has nothing to return to? Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means? Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point? If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means? Do you know how to conduct yourself properly in discussion? I’ll thank you for trying harder to from now on. It’s his homeland, regardless of whether it’s war-torn or not. If he has nothing there or not is irrelevant to whether he wishes to go back. Which he could, or he could apply to stay, through the proper channels, which he also could (you’ll note I left open such a possibility). None of which absolves him or whomever it was that trafficked him of their actions. > Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point? Yes, what are the chances? Perhaps it would be good to hear something more concrete from you on what those chances are. > If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place? Because it's their home, and because hypothetically you haven't provided any reasoning as to why it would remain indefinitely dangerous, but I'm sure we can play this game of endlessly more unlikely and difficult situations so it will be interesting to hear the substance behind these hypotheticals.
sonotathrowaway 4y ago
So does intent - trying to prosecute someone for the indirect benefits they gained as a victim of crime is morally perverse.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Mens rea is the standard for something to be a crime, the assumption being that I cannot call it a crime without there being intent. Without intent it is not a crime. Did he know that he was benefiting from using a false name? Was he of an age that the courts have deemed there to be a presumed ability to tell right from wrong? This test would be applied at every level of the justice system (at least every level above bare detection). It is a presumption of the system of criminal law in a common law jurisdiction, hence, it should be taken as said. Or I thought it would be. The principle of charity is always a good place to start a discussion[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

bilekas 4y ago

> receiving stolen property Being in possession of stolen property is not necessarily a crime. If you buy something on eBay that was stolen without your knowledge you're not going to get charged. You may have to return it and be out of pocket probably, but not crime. As for soliciting murder that's a crime. There is an intent there. > He is a direct beneficiary though. What if instead of his lief today he was forced into the sex slave ? Would you still consider him a beneficiary ?

brigandish 4y ago
If we're looking for mens rea then the moment a child is over 10, if they don't confess to being an illegal immigrant then they know what they're doing. As to your other question, they would be a victim as they are a slave. Return to their country of origin should still be favoured though (but not mandatory). If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? As such I'm not sure why that's relevant. Pointing out that something can become complex does not mean that the simpler cases we're actually discussing can't be solved.
- garyfirestorm 4y ago
  > If you were enslaved and sent to another country would you not wish to return? Are you forgetting that he has nothing to return to? Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means? Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point? If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place?
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > Do you not understand what the term ‘war torn’ means? Do you know how to conduct yourself properly in discussion? I’ll thank you for trying harder to from now on. It’s his homeland, regardless of whether it’s war-torn or not. If he has nothing there or not is irrelevant to whether he wishes to go back. Which he could, or he could apply to stay, through the proper channels, which he also could (you’ll note I left open such a possibility). None of which absolves him or whomever it was that trafficked him of their actions. > Hypothetically if someone were enslaved from a point, what are the chances it won’t happen again if they return to the same point? Yes, what are the chances? Perhaps it would be good to hear something more concrete from you on what those chances are. > If they found safety net where they are currently why would they return to unsafe place? Because it's their home, and because hypothetically you haven't provided any reasoning as to why it would remain indefinitely dangerous, but I'm sure we can play this game of endlessly more unlikely and difficult situations so it will be interesting to hear the substance behind these hypotheticals.

sonotathrowaway 4y ago

So does intent - trying to prosecute someone for the indirect benefits they gained as a victim of crime is morally perverse.

brigandish 4y ago
Mens rea is the standard for something to be a crime, the assumption being that I cannot call it a crime without there being intent. Without intent it is not a crime. Did he know that he was benefiting from using a false name? Was he of an age that the courts have deemed there to be a presumed ability to tell right from wrong? This test would be applied at every level of the justice system (at least every level above bare detection). It is a presumption of the system of criminal law in a common law jurisdiction, hence, it should be taken as said. Or I thought it would be. The principle of charity is always a good place to start a discussion[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity