Got busted WITH(out) a MetroCard

[CarlJStoneham]

YAG,
everyone knows that intent is a vital element of a crime. If you can't prove intent, no crime has occured. This is often the lynchpin of a case where "the crazy person" gets off. Perhaps we're misunderstanding. Are you really saying a crime does not require intent? If so, explain what you mean. We're not talking about different types of intent. We know that intent can be easy to show, despite what the defendant claims. But you must show intent. If not, no crime.

 

[ENASNI]

Oy

Get him Yag... he is a blow-hard!

 

[CarlJStoneham]

Well, I would certainly be interested to know how one can commit a crime without intent. Of course, we're not speaking about the difference between specific and general intent, since those are both still forms of intent (Black's, ed6, 1990: “[a] state of mind in which a person seeks to accomplish a given result through a course of action.”).

If this isn't true, I'd love to know. My Business Law prof in college (granted, that was 12 years ago) was VERY specific on this point as was my "Church and law" prof in grad school. I checked with a co-worker who is a retired trial lawyer and he emphatically stated "no intent, no crime". Of course, they could all be wrong (or things have changed just recently), but they certainly seemed quite sure of themselves. Sounds like a really interesting argument coming up. Alas, I'm headed home to my modem, so I won't be able to check until tomorrow (unless there's an answer in the next 15 mins...).

 

[You Are Guilty]

Its technically wrong because you stated "only the commission of the act is, and you admitted you did it. Uhoh."
Amazing how you can't even read your own writing. And by the way, I passed my criminal law final a long time ago.

Try reading it again, in context with the OP's original post. Then, sit and meditate why your ridiculous interpretation of his situation is completely misguided. While you're at it, point out the precise unconscious act by our OP akin to your sleepwalker "example". Where exactly did the OP sleepwalk through the turnstile? (And who was your CrimPro professor? I'd like to sue him for negligence for passing you.)



Carl, to answer your post, but the point being made here is that the OP not wanting/intending to commit a crime is irrelevant when all that is required to establish the violation was his commission of the act itself. Not every criminal act requires "mens rea". The obvious example for this is speeding - it is sufficient that the speed of your vehicle is over the posted limit for you to be found guilty. Whether you intended (or didn't) to go that speed is utterly irrelevant. In fact, let's say your car malfunctioned and it was physicially impossible to do the speed limit - you are still guilty of speeding, because intent is not an element of the crime. (Which is the point jkruler cannot seem to comprehend).

Take the actual statute which makes the OP's act illegal:

Section 1050.4

Payment of fare and access to Authority facilities.

[highlight]1. No person shall use or enter the facilities or conveyances of the Authority, for any purpose, without the payment of fare or tender of other valid fare media used in accordance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by the Authority. For the purposes of this section, it shall be considered an entrance into a facility or conveyance whenever a person passes through a point at which a fare is required or collected.[/highlight]
2. Reserved.
3. Except for employees of the Authority acting within the scope of their employment, no person shall sell, provide, copy, reproduce or produce, or create any version of any fare media or otherwise authorize access to or use of the facilities, conveyances or services of the Authority without the written permission of a representative of the Authority duly authorized by the Authority to grant such right to others.
4. No person shall put or attempt to put any paper, article, instrument or item, other than fare media issued by the Authority and valid for the place, time and manner in which used, into any farebox, turnstile, pass reader or other fare collection instrument, receptacle, device, machine or location.
5. Fare media that have been forged, counterfeited, imitated, altered or improperly transferred or that have been used in a manner inconsistent with the rules shall be confiscated.

Note that there is no requirement for any intent (i.e. "willfully", "recklessly") to commit the fare-beating. The operative word is "shall", denoting that the act alone suffices.

Now, moving onto the penalty section:

Section 1050.10

Fine and penalties.

Pursuant to section 1204(5-a) of the Public Authorities Law, any person committing one or more violations of these rules shall be subject to either:

1. criminal prosecution in the criminal court of the City of New York, which court may impose a fine not to exceed twenty-five dollars or a term of imprisonment for not longer than ten days, or both;

or
2. civil penalties imposed by the transit adjudication bureau in an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars per violation (exclusive of interest or costs assessed thereon).
1. The schedule of such civil penalties will be set forth in an internal procedure manual of the transit adjudication bureau and may be revised from time to time, including provisions for repeat offenses.
2. In addition to a civil penalty for one or more violations of these rules, an additional penalty, not to exceed fifty dollars, may be imposed upon the failure of a respondent in any proceeding commenced with respect to any such violation to make a timely response to or appearance in connection with a notice of violation or order issued by the Authority in such proceeding.

You can see it can be a criminal offense. (For practical purposes, in the case such as the OP's, the odds are it would end up on the Transit side, but for someone say, with outstanding warrants who would be going "to the clink" anyway, then the criminal charge would likely be tagged on).

 

[ENASNI]

Oh YAG... I get chills when you do that...

 

[CarlJStoneham]

OK. Here's my follow-up law quesiton...

If I had a lawyer in this case (I know we're gettig a bit absurd, but maybe if it's a serious string of citations and it's jail v prison...), could not the lawyer insist that the city prove intent, and if they couldn't...? Example of the speeding car. Through no fault of my own (including negligence), the cruise control on my car goes nuts and pushes the car over the speed limit and, before I can act to fix it, I'm tagged with a speeding violation. It's minor (say 5 over), but the DA knows I have a history of speeding violations and wants to teach me a lesson this time. I come to court with an affidavit from the car manufacturer that the cruise control malfunctioned, effectively clearing me of intent. Wouldn't the DA drop the crime charge since he/she knows intent isn't there (unless there's another angle)?

I'm sorry to be obtuse about this, but just because the law says somethign is automatically a crime doesn't mean it is. Laws are put on the books all the time and are later found to be in error. Again, I seem to remember both profs (haven't had a ahance to run your comments by my coworker) insisting that you could not be *convicted* of a crime if they could not show intent.

Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to catch your answer tomorrow

 

[CarlJStoneham]

Oh, better example on the car (before I leave)...

The speedometer is inaccurate. As far as I know, this is a solid defense against a speeding ticket, I assume because it clears me of intent. If my speedo says I'm doing 65, but I'm really doing 68 (and I can prove it's incorrectly calibrated), it goes to show that I had no intent to speed and hence am not guilty of the crime of breaking the speed limit (though I guess I might be guilty of some other crime if I had put smaller tires on the car, etc).

And just to clarify, I'm not saying OP didn't commit a crime, just interested in the theory...

 

[jkruler]

Try reading it again, in context with the OP's original post. Then, sit and meditate why your ridiculous interpretation of his situation is completely misguided. While you're at it, point out the precise unconscious act by our OP akin to your sleepwalker "example". Where exactly did the OP sleepwalk through the turnstile? (And who was your CrimPro professor? I'd like to sue him for negligence for passing you.)



Carl, to answer your post, but the point being made here is that the OP not wanting/intending to commit a crime is irrelevant when all that is required to establish the violation was his commission of the act itself. Not every criminal act requires "mens rea". The obvious example for this is speeding - it is sufficient that the speed of your vehicle is over the posted limit for you to be found guilty. Whether you intended (or didn't) to go that speed is utterly irrelevant. In fact, let's say your car malfunctioned and it was physicially impossible to do the speed limit - you are still guilty of speeding, because intent is not an element of the crime. (Which is the point jkruler cannot seem to comprehend).

Take the actual statute which makes the OP's act illegal:


Note that there is no requirement for any intent (i.e. "willfully", "recklessly") to commit the fare-beating. The operative word is "shall", denoting that the act alone suffices.

Now, moving onto the penalty section:

You can see it can be a criminal offense. (For practical purposes, in the case such as the OP's, the odds are it would end up on the Transit side, but for someone say, with outstanding warrants who would be going "to the clink" anyway, then the criminal charge would likely be tagged on).

I read the original post, the problem is your answer went beyond the original post regarding "intent to commit a crime" to state that NO intent is needed. The sleepwalker example was a hypo, I did not say that it was relevant to not swiping a metro card. With regard to speeding you are 100% wrong. If you are driving without paying attention to how fast you are going, you are driving wrecklessly which does satisfy the mens rea requirement.

If you can show that the spedometer was not working at the time the ticket was issued, and you were not aware of the problem, then that would be a valid defense to speeding. (A malfunctioning cruise/speed control would not get you out of a ticket becuase they are not required elements for driving a car and you assume the risk when you use them).

 

[You Are Guilty]

I read the original post, the problem is your answer went beyond the original post regarding "intent to commit a crime" to state that NO intent is needed. The sleepwalker example was a hypo, I did not say that it was relevant to not swiping a metro card.

Correct, no intent to commit a crime is needed. For the normal people reading this, the intent to commit the "act" of skipping the turnstile is presumed when one is awake, conscious and not hallucinating. Thus, it is quite redundant to say that "intent to walk" is necessary.

Given that the OP gave a specific situation and asked for the potential outcome, injecting hypertechnical "what-if's" isn't going to help him one iota. You can argue your points all you want in class, but my response is how it works in the real world.

With regard to speeding you are 100% wrong. If you are driving without paying attention to how fast you are going, you are driving wrecklessly which does satisfy the mens rea requirement.

Oh really? So now "speeding" and "reckless driving" are the same offense? Here's the statute; show me where it requires "recklessness" (or any other intent):

§ 1180. Basic rule and maximum limits. (a) No person shall drive a
vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the
conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then
existing.
(b) Except as provided in subdivision (g) of this section and except
when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance
with subdivision (a) of this section or when maximum speed limits have
been established as hereinafter authorized, no person shall drive a
vehicle at a speed in excess of fifty-five miles per hour.
(Rest of very long statute omitted as irrelevant)

Don't hold your breath.

If you can show that the spedometer was not working at the time the ticket was issued, and you were not aware of the problem, then that would be a valid defense to speeding. (A malfunctioning cruise/speed control would not get you out of a ticket becuase they are not required elements for driving a car and you assume the risk when you use them).

And this statement is all the proof I need to sue your CrimPro professor.
Where the hell are you getting "assumption of risk" from in a strict liability offense? First of all, it's strict liability. Second, even when there are statutory defenses to a SL offense, "assumption of risk" is a principal from negligence, which, in case you haven't figured it out, is nowhere near the topic we're talking about.

So, according to your ridiculous logic, if my taillights, which are a "required element" for driving a car (whatever the hell that means), are burnt out and not working, I can't be found guilty of driving without taillights if I was "unaware" of the problem? But, on the flip side of the same argument, if my muffler, which is not a "required element" for driving a car, is too loud, even if I was unaware of it, I can be found guilty?

I really hope you're not in a legal field

 

[You Are Guilty]

Oh, better example on the car (before I leave)...

The speedometer is inaccurate. As far as I know, this is a solid defense against a speeding ticket, I assume because it clears me of intent. If my speedo says I'm doing 65, but I'm really doing 68 (and I can prove it's incorrectly calibrated), it goes to show that I had no intent to speed and hence am not guilty of the crime of breaking the speed limit (though I guess I might be guilty of some other crime if I had put smaller tires on the car, etc).

And just to clarify, I'm not saying OP didn't commit a crime, just interested in the theory...

Carl, your question would require a rather lengthy discussion of how criminal statutes are worded and what they mean. Such a post is inappropriate for this board. When I get a chance, I'll post a link to another site which answers the questions you have. I just don't have the time to post here what takes days in law school to teach.

One minor point, every state's statutes are different - what applies in NY is not necessarily what applies in CA or TX or even Guam.

 

[CarlJStoneham]

I confess, I'm an addict Anyway, modem seems to be loading faster today. OK YAG, I've reread your post and I have a few more question/comments.

1. Any law suggesting that your action is a crime rests on the requirement by US Law that a crime requires mens rea. A prosecutor can say what I do is a crime all day, but if he/she can't prove mens rea, US Law does not back him/her up and there can be no conviction.

2. To take your examples. Note that the Fine and Penalites you pasted speak of "civil penalties" and "criminal prosecution". The former suggests guilt. The latter does no such thing. In fact, under US Law, it carries a presumption of innocence until a reasonable doubt has been established. The statue simply simply says that state may charge me criminally. Why would they bother with a case if I was automatically guilty of a crime? Because they must prove that a crime occurred. They must show intent. If, for example, I was pushed over the turnstyle by a pressing mob behind me and swept onto the subway (for instance after a large celebration (like it did to me once after New Year's at Mall in DC)), and they could not find intent, I would not be guilty of the crime, even if I had no ticket. Again, as soon as we walk into a court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and part of that proof is intent. Of course, intent may be inferred from the commission of the act, but it is nonetheless present. No intent = no crime.

I think I see your point, but (and pardom my arrogance here), I think you're wrong. It seems to me that the statutes prove my point. Now, as I've said before, I am no lawyer. I've simply had a few law courses (and taught Business Law for one year at a high school), so I could be way off, so let me have it if I am. But let me ask if this a fair condition: show me case law where intent was not one of the elements of finding a person guilty of a crime.

PS Sorry if this is angry-sounding. not intended to at all (this is a GREAT debate!) I'm just typing fast since I gotta get out ride me bike And yes, I agree that the state of NY would not be likely to take this as a criminal offense. Again, arguing "generalisms"

 

[CarlJStoneham]

YAG, just saw your post (after I posted mine, of course ). I look forward to your links. If nothing else, law is definitely one of the coolest subjects I've ever studied. I often wish I'd stuck with my plans to go to law school. Then again, I wish I'd stuck with a lot of plans But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy with where I am in life right now Thanks for a great discussion.

PS, reading your last post before I submit this:

Correct, no intent to commit a crime is needed. For the normal people reading this, the intent to commit the "act" of skipping the turnstile is presumed when one is awake, conscious and not hallucinating.

Then it sounds to me like intent is there. It may be assumed in the act, but it is nonetheless present. Are we maybe all arging about something we agree on? I'm not saying you have to get me to say "Yeah, I meant to do it", but you do have to show that I intended to do so. And yes, the act in and of itself may carry my implicit intent. General vs Specific Intent, right?

And maybe, just maybe, the issue lies with the phrase mens rea which literally means "mental state". "Intent" is the English word we use to describe this, but I could see how that could cloud the issue. FWIW, I've only been arguing that mens rea is necesary for the commission of a crime. Perhaps using the word "intent" is inaccurate...

 

[jkruler]

Correct, no intent to commit a crime is needed. For the normal people reading this, the intent to commit the "act" of skipping the turnstile is presumed when one is awake, conscious and not hallucinating. Thus, it is quite redundant to say that "intent to walk" is necessary.

Given that the OP gave a specific situation and asked for the potential outcome, injecting hypertechnical "what-if's" isn't going to help him one iota. You can argue your points all you want in class, but my response is how it works in the real world.


Oh really? So now "speeding" and "reckless driving" are the same offense? Here's the statute; show me where it requires "recklessness" (or any other intent):

Don't hold your breath.


And this statement is all the proof I need to sue your CrimPro professor.
Where the hell are you getting "assumption of risk" from in a strict liability offense? First of all, it's strict liability. Second, even when there are statutory defenses to a SL offense, "assumption of risk" is a principal from negligence, which, in case you haven't figured it out, is nowhere near the topic we're talking about.

So, according to your ridiculous logic, if my taillights, which are a "required element" for driving a car (whatever the hell that means), are burnt out and not working, I can't be found guilty of driving without taillights if I was "unaware" of the problem? But, on the flip side of the same argument, if my muffler, which is not a "required element" for driving a car, is too loud, even if I was unaware of it, I can be found guilty?

I really hope you're not in a legal field

You really have no clue. I never said wreckless driving and speeding are the same offense, I said that driving without paying attention to your speedometer satisifies the "reckless" part of the definition of mens rea which requires an intentional or reckless STATE OF MIND. You can quote statutes all you want but if you don't understand the basic aspects that any criminal code must adhere to in order to be consitutional you will never understand what you are reading. Before you start suing law professors maybe you want to try to actually get in to law school first. You are a joke, and a loser.

 

[You Are Guilty]

You really have no clue. I never said wreckless driving and speeding are the same offense, I said that driving without paying attention to your speedometer satisifies the "reckless" part of the definition of mens rea which requires an intentional or reckless STATE OF MIND. You can quote statutes all you want but if you don't understand the basic aspects that any criminal code must adhere to in order to be consitutional you will never understand what you are reading. Before you start suing law professors maybe you want to try to actually get in to law school first. You are a joke, and a loser.

Oh good lord.

So I can quote statutes that have been upheld in court, oh, I dunno, a few HUNDRED THOUSAND TIMES but I don't know basic constitutional law. Oh yeah, that's rich. And you, (who cannot comprehend that strict liability crimes are CONSTITUTIONAL), certainly know better than I. Well, here's a pop quiz Einstein - which one of us has a law degree and is a practicing lawyer? (Here's a clue since you're so dense, it's not you.)

For anyone else reading this manure, be advised that jokerruler here knows not of which he speaks. He believes that you cannot be convicted of speeding if you didn't intend to speed, and the basis of that belief isn't one of those pesky statutes, it's his reading of the Constitution (presumably of Iraq).

So think twice should he respond to any of your questions in the future.

 

[You Are Guilty]

YAG, just saw your post (after I posted mine, of course ). I look forward to your links. If nothing else, law is definitely one of the coolest subjects I've ever studied. I often wish I'd stuck with my plans to go to law school. Then again, I wish I'd stuck with a lot of plans But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy with where I am in life right now Thanks for a great discussion.

PS, reading your last post before I submit this:


Then it sounds to me like intent is there. It may be assumed in the act, but it is nonetheless present. Are we maybe all arging about something we agree on? I'm not saying you have to get me to say "Yeah, I meant to do it", but you do have to show that I intended to do so. And yes, the act in and of itself may carry my implicit intent. General vs Specific Intent, right?

Well, no. "Strict liability crimes do not require any specific or general intent. The conduct itself, even if innocently engaged in, results in criminal liability, e.g., parking violations, weapons offenses, or health code violations".

And maybe, just maybe, the issue lies with the phrase mens rea which literally means "mental state". "Intent" is the English word we use to describe this, but I could see how that could cloud the issue. FWIW, I've only been arguing that mens rea is necesary for the commission of a crime. Perhaps using the word "intent" is inaccurate...

I think you're reading too much into it. Try these two "summaries" and see if they don't clear things up a bit before we get too far off course here:

http://sixthform.info/law/01_module...bility/12_1_principle_of_strict_liability.htm
http://www.outlawslegal.com/refer/ch06.htm

(And pay attention to the discussion on "reverse burden" which our retarded co-poster here tells me is unconstitutional. I think that might be the stumbling block to our discussion).