| Not a lawyer, but the other responder definitely isn’t either. Whether intent is required is down to how the law is written. For many offenses “strict liability” applies, where intent is not required, they only have to prove you did it, not what your intent was. DUI is typically a strict liability crime. They don’t need to prove that you intended to drive drunk, only that you did drive drunk. |
| |
| ▲ | wahern 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A strict liability crime is something of an oxymoron. Crimes always require intent, the mens rea element. The question is intent for what. If somebody drugged you without your knowledge and you were charged with a DUI, you would have a defense--no intent to become intoxicated. The strict liability means once you choose to become intoxicated, you're liable for driving intoxicated, even if in some other context your intoxication would mean you couldn't form the requisite intent for something, e.g. have sex. If there's too much distance between the act you intend to do and the strict liability acts that complete the crime, then the crime would be considered unconstitutional. Criminal law in common law systems emerged from tort law, so there are many parallels, including the notion of strict liability. (Thus the old axiom about crimes being an offense to the king, specifically an injury to the peaceful society he's ostensibly trying to maintain.) But criminal law has a moral dimension that is absent or muted in other areas, so strict liability could never be as expansive as in tort law or regulatory law. | | |
| ▲ | nl 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > A strict liability crime is something of an oxymoron. Crimes always require intent, the mens rea element. This is wrong. In criminal and civil law, strict liability is a standard of liability under which a person is legally responsible for the consequences flowing from an activity even in the absence of fault or criminal intent on the part of the defendant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability | |
| ▲ | deepwoods 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That is just not true. You can be held liable for DUI even if you did not intend to become intoxicated (though this may vary somewhat state-by-state). Speeding is another example - you do not need to intend to go over the speed limit, it just matters that you did it. The only possible exception would be duress or necessity, but those are affirmative defenses, which are separate from the elements of the offense. | |
| ▲ | dghlsakjg 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Are you a lawyer? Fairly certain that the entire point of strict liability is that mens rea is not required for certain crimes. As in, if I meant to travel at 70 and was instead doing 100 it doesn’t matter that I sincerely meant not to speed and did not know I was speeding, I can still be convicted even if the judge believes I had no intent. | | |
| ▲ | lanyard-textile an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The way we use mens rea in our legal system is more like "mind of the criminal," not outright literal intent. Negligence can be "unintentional" but still land you in the realm of having a guilty criminal mind. I find it to be a reasonable take. If you're accidentally going 100 in a 70 (which is a misdemeanor in california), you're not being a careful enough driver, and we deem that lack of care criminal. | | |
| ▲ | jrflowers an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Negligence can be "unintentional" but still land you in the realm of having a guilty criminal mind. That’s just another way of saying “not all crimes require a guilty mind” with extra steps | | |
| ▲ | magicalist 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Strict liability literally is crimes that don't require a guilty mind. That's different (sometimes) when, for example, you're found guilty of criminal negligence leading to someone being injured. Prosecutors don't have to demonstrate that you intended for someone to get hurt for that, your mens rea is that you should have perceived the danger of what you were doing but didn't. edit: reading your other comments in this thread, maybe I missed your point, in which case, whoosh. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dataflow 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > As in, if I meant to travel at 70 and was instead doing 100 it doesn’t matter that I sincerely meant not to speed and did not know I was speeding, I can still be convicted even if the judge believes I had no intent. IANAL but from what I've looked up in the last there's at least willfulness that matters for these things. For example if you could prove that happened because your car accelerator pedal broke and you had no opportunity to react, I'm pretty sure you would not be guilty, strict liability or not. | | |
| ▲ | deepwoods an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | At that point you are not so much "driving" as you are sitting in the driver's seat of a renegade vehicle. | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 15 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are exceptions usually for extraordinary events. In New York there’s a concept of doing various things “in the furtherance of justice”. Judges have broad discretion to dismiss or reduce tickets. Often it so happens that those reductions increase the city/towns share of the revenue. In those cases, the judge may find that circumstances would make a traffic ticket unjust. But the standard of guilt is strict and clear cut. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jrflowers an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Crimes always require intent, the mens rea element. LMAO “there’s no such thing as negligence” I type on my phone as my car plows through the doors of a Black Angus |
| |
| ▲ | LilBytes 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Negligence, criminal or otherwise is very well defined in most legal systems. |
|
