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

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