Fed won't file charges in school laptop spy case

[Lance_Boyle]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-08-17-laptop-spying_N.htm

"Federal prosecutors will not file charges against a school district or its employees over the use of software to remotely monitor students.

U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger says investigators have found no evidence of criminal intent by Lower Merion School District employees who activated tracking software that took thousands of webcam and screenshot images on school-provided laptops."

My question: since when is criminal intent necessary for filing criminal charges?

[sendero]

1. Predictable..

.... one standard for average citizens, another for the chosen few.

I can only hope they sue these fuckers in civil court and drain them dry.

[Hannah Bell]

2. and presumably, none of the predicted child porn, either.

toljaso

[Lance_Boyle]

3. Seems like the prosecutor who declined to charge the district needs a refresher

on criminal law. Seriously - declined to prosecute because there was no evidence of criminal intent? Guess that prosecutor thinks all homicides must be murder one. Unfortunately there is usually no way to sue a prosecutor for failing at his job.

[zipplewrath]

6. Actually, intent is important

It is not uncommon for people to be acquitted because their was no intent to break a law, and by a reasonable person standard, they had no way of knowing they were breaking a law. Not out of ignorance mind you, but out of a "reasonable person" standard that says even being aware of the law, one wouldn't necessarily know they were breaking a law.

One way one demonstrates that a reasonable person would know, is if there was intent to do so. So intent becomes a sufficient, but not necessary, condition. Even in the case of murder, as you suggest, you often can't get them on intentional murder. When you go for lower classes, you are forced into the "reasonable person" standard or "careless disregard" kinda stuff.

They probably could still have prosecuted on some extemely low level charge of some sort, some wire tapping law or something, but the penalty may have been small, and the ability to show ACTUAL harm to someone may have been difficult.

[Lance_Boyle]

7. Important, but not necessary, as you say.

Ignorance of the law does not absolve one of criminal responsibility for breaking the law. Showing *actual* harm in this specific case would have been trivial - they spies (unintentionally) created child porn by capturing images of students in various states of undress in their bedrooms. If "she said she was 18" is not a defense against a statutory rape charge, then "we didn't know the kids might be undressed when we snapped their pics" is not a defense against a child porn charge.

[zipplewrath]

8. However

"I didn't even know we had those images" would be a defense.

Like I say, I suspect the problem was that they would have to connect one individual to more than one photo, and then establish knowledge, along with some intent, to get much of a sentence out of it.

[Lochloosa]

4. "Lance_Boyle"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:patriot:

[leftofcool]

5. Of course.....we can spy on your kids anytime we want to

We can spy on you too, Patriot Act 101