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 34 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.