4 ms·
In common law systems, there is often a differentiation between actions that are only crimes if there's a particular harm, and one where that requirement doesn'
by NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
In common law systems, there is often a differentiation between actions that are only crimes if there's a particular harm, and one where that requirement doesn't hold ... the former are "result crimes" and the latter "conduct crimes".
e.g. in English law, the offense of "indecent exposure" (i.e. showing your genitals in public) used to require that this cause "obstruction, annoyance or danger" to at least one person - it was a result crime.
The law was subsequently changed because I guess they decided it wasn't really necessary to have the prosecution carry the burden of proof on that; so it became a conduct crime.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y agoThis distinction is not something I'd heard of before, so thanks for the explanation. It seems to me that I fundamentally disagree with this idea of a conduct crime. Prosecutors should be expected to prove the harm that was caused by the actions for which a person is having criminal charges pressed against them. (I don't know of anything like this in American law; per my understanding, if you do the thing that's written down as not to do, you did bad.) If it's expected that it will be obvious what the harm is, then it can be expected that proving it (or convincing a judge of it) will be easy. Anyway, maybe I'll be able to come up with a counter example but I'm coming up blank currently.