There's no need for aggression, especially when you're spectacularly wrong. There's nothing more dangerous than a confident yet totally inaccurate fact-checker.

There's no need for aggression, especially when you're spectacularly wrong. There's nothing more dangerous than a confident yet totally inaccurate fact-checker. The right to trial by jury is not fully incorporated against the states. That's a common myth. It only applies if the term of imprisonment is six months or greater. Otherwise, the right is not incorporated. See Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970) Hence, the end-run I described where police charge a variety of lesser counts, try the case before the local magistrate, and the cumulative sentence ends up as years without a jury ever examining the evidence. There are plenty of black defendants in the South right now who would be happy to explain to you the intricacies of partial incorporation, if you're so inclined. As for this statement: >"Intent still the primary factor of most criminal laws at the federal level, and all criminal laws at the state levels (excluding infractions punishable by fines)." (Emphasis Mine.) Let me list a few state criminal strict liability statutes that certainly come with incarceration: Statutory Rape Terroristic Threat Driving While Intoxicated Sale of Restricted Substance to a Minor Corruption of Minors I noticed you limited your comment to federal laws, while I did not, and even explicitly falsely denied the large trend in states toward strict liability criminal laws. We could also have a lengthy discussion about the various ways in which the necessary intent is being obfuscated in dozens of commonly charged statutes. The mens rea requirement is being rapidly eroded. Yelling loudly on the internet won't change that. As for where I got my information, that would be Princeton University, and four years as a paralegal under an attorney with a JD/MBA from the University of Chicago.