I'm sick of hearing about how difficult it is to prove "state of mind" and "intent"

[Silent3]

The more power and responsibility you assume, the more you should be held accountable knowing whether what you're doing is right or wrong. The reverse seems to be the usual case.

I don't give a damn if a CEO selling a fraudulent product might have truly believed in the fraud themselves.

I certainly don't give a damn if Trump had deluded himself into believing he'd actually won Georgia. It's totally fucked up that the prosecution is expected to prove Trump knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he was acting illegally when fishing for 11,780 votes.

The same goes for whether Trump knowingly whipped the 1/6 mob into a violent frenzy. As President you should be expected to know the effects of your inflamed rhetoric, with little or no leniency for claiming you couldn't have known how people would respond.

When you're President, you should be expected to know better, and be expected to pay a price if you don't.

I'm not totally against state of mind and intent figuring into legal decisions, but it sure seems like the little guy doesn't get many breaks when it comes to that, while the powerful abuse the hell out it.

[Walleye]

1. "Possession of marijuana with intent to sell". They pulled that one out every time

If you had over a certain amount, it was charged that you intended to sell, they didn’t need no stinking proof

[Silent3]

2. +1! That is an excellent example of how the system is rigged. n/t

[Walleye]

4. Being a white girl I was never busted. But I was ready to bring out witnesses

That would swear that I never even gave a joint away much less sold anything

[Poiuyt]

5. I remember hearing about some contracter who tried to buy an airplane ticket with cash

He normally worked on a cash basis, so that's what he had. But the authorities just assumed it was drug money.

[Walleye]

7. Oh yes they will take that money with no probable cause or anything. Tired of hearing whining

About how hard it is to prosecute. Yes it’s hard to prosecute powerful white men. Poor people of color no problem

[Poiuyt]

9. Exactly!

[gab13by13]

3. It's what I heard from 2 former judges,

I think it's overstepping the bar for intent also, but I'm just an internet lawyer.

Using the logic regarding Trump; what if I couldn't balance my checking account, it is $1,000.00 short and I conclude that my bank is cheating me, it stole my money, with no proof, just like Trump. So I go to the bank and threaten a teller to give me my stolen $1,000.
I tell the teller he must give me my money or bad things are going to happen to him. I persist threatening the teller for an hour. The cops show up, I tell them I wasn't trying to rob the bank, I just wanted my money back they stole from me. Would the cops leave me off?

[Walleye]

6. Depends on who you were I think

[DeeNice]

8. David Berkowitz said he thought his dog told him to murder all those people.

That defense didn't work out either.

[fightforfreedom]

10. Good post, I agree completely.

[world wide wally]

11. The short answer is that Trump is just a poor loser and a whiney cry baby.

He would do ANYTHING to avoid admitting he lost the election.

[harumph]

12. Here is a report from Politico circa 2016 before being sold.

It goes right to this issue.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/05/criminal-justice-reform-mens-rea-middle-ground-000120/

"Despite gridlock and the distraction of a presidential election, Congress hoped to pass legislation this year that would overhaul our flawed criminal justice system. But with the election approaching, that hope is rapidly disappearing over disagreements on one controversial issue: “mens rea reform.”

“Mens rea” — Latin for “guilty mind” — refers to requirements in criminal law that concern a defendant’s mental state, like the intent to cause harm or knowledge of what one was doing. Republicans have demanded that criminal justice reform also make such requirements in federal law stricter, forcing prosecutors in many cases to prove that defendants knew they were breaking the law. Democrats have balked at the proposed reforms, arguing that they would make it much harder to prosecute corporate executives for white-collar crimes."

"Both sides have a point. Mens rea reform can increase clarity in the law and make unfair prosecutions less likely. But the Republican proposals, in both the House and Senate, are so strict that they would insulate many highly culpable actors from conviction. Instead of allowing the mens rea issue to derail criminal justice reform, lawmakers should agree on a middle ground that imposes a simple default mens rea requirement — knowledge of the facts constituting the offense. Such an agreement would improve our criminal law and pave the way for comprehensive criminal justice reform."

[Goonch]

13. ;-{)🖖‍

[doc03]

14. That doesn't apply to regular people. nt

[unblock]

15. Something puritanical about it. Overemphasis on the specific morality failure or sin

I agree that there should be a distinction between causing harm by accident vs negligence vs intent.

That said, something should be said for being held to a standard, particularly if the one who caused harm should have known better or engineered the circumstances.

That's something often missing from arguments involving guns. Someone who brings a lethal weapon into a situation should be held to a high standard in terms of safeguarding others from their gun.

I think if someone fires a gun at someone, they should be held to a standard of getting it right, i.e., even if their honest intent was self-defense, they should still pay a price for shooting someone when it turns out there was no real need for lethal self-defense.

Society can't work if everyone can have a gun and kill anyone who makes any sudden movement.

To my mind, there's only a small difference between someone who goes out and deliberately finds someone to shoot, and someone who inserts himself and lethal weaponry into a situation that could reasonably be expected to cause him to be fearful and who then shoots someone.

[Initech]

16. Yeah Trump and most of his cohorts damn knew what they were doing.

They can't claim delusion on this one.