2 ms·

> Meanwhile, companies who do some real evil stuff get off scot-free because no one had the moral thought to have their doubts in writing. No, belief or doubts

> Meanwhile, companies who do some real evil stuff get off scot-free because no one had the moral thought to have their doubts in writing. No, belief or doubts has absolutely nothing to do with whether you committed a crime or not. It has to do with whether it was with malice/intention.

nightowl_games 3y ago
Your speaking with too much absolutism. It doesn't matter whether you committed a crime or not, it matters if you can be convicted. That distinction illuminates the ambiguity and uncertainty that is it inherent in the justice system.
lazide 3y ago
Intent is a required element in many crimes (mens rea), and proving so is often hard. Unless someone writes one of these emails, like they noted. Fraud, for instance. Or murder vs manslaughter vs ‘an accident’. Smoking gun emails can totally sink a case or get people convicted.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Intent is relevant to the severity. Murder is a crime, manslaughter is a crime. Criminal fraud requires intent, civil fraud does not. Lacking intent does not make it "scot-free."
  - lazide 3y ago
    The difference between murder, manslaughter, an accident, or even justifiable homicide is exactly one of intent/knowledge. 2 of those 4 are crimes. 2 are not. Criminal fraud and civil fraud both require knowledge (or a reasonable belief that it was likely) that one was lying - which is intent, if one moves forward. Thinking you are telling the truth (actually!) means no fraud. There are many crimes that do not exist without intent. There are also many crimes that exist regardless of intent, like possession of controlled substances, statutory rape, etc. Now damn near anything can be a tort of course, but while those can produce large damages in a civil suit - they aren’t crimes per se. You’d need a criminal violation for that.
pixl97 3y ago
So, it seems like you don't understand mens rea versus actus reus

nightowl_games 3y ago

Your speaking with too much absolutism. It doesn't matter whether you committed a crime or not, it matters if you can be convicted. That distinction illuminates the ambiguity and uncertainty that is it inherent in the justice system.

lazide 3y ago

Intent is a required element in many crimes (mens rea), and proving so is often hard. Unless someone writes one of these emails, like they noted. Fraud, for instance. Or murder vs manslaughter vs ‘an accident’. Smoking gun emails can totally sink a case or get people convicted.

paulddraper 3y ago
Intent is relevant to the severity. Murder is a crime, manslaughter is a crime. Criminal fraud requires intent, civil fraud does not. Lacking intent does not make it "scot-free."
- lazide 3y ago
  The difference between murder, manslaughter, an accident, or even justifiable homicide is exactly one of intent/knowledge. 2 of those 4 are crimes. 2 are not. Criminal fraud and civil fraud both require knowledge (or a reasonable belief that it was likely) that one was lying - which is intent, if one moves forward. Thinking you are telling the truth (actually!) means no fraud. There are many crimes that do not exist without intent. There are also many crimes that exist regardless of intent, like possession of controlled substances, statutory rape, etc. Now damn near anything can be a tort of course, but while those can produce large damages in a civil suit - they aren’t crimes per se. You’d need a criminal violation for that.

pixl97 3y ago

So, it seems like you don't understand mens rea versus actus reus