Got busted WITH(out) a MetroCard

[jkruler]

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.

Now I see how you make arguments--you put words in my mouth and then say they are incorrect. When did I say strict liability statutes are not constitutional? I said the requirement for mens rea is based in the constitution. Even strict liability statutes are not absolute. If someone held a gun to your head and told you to commit a strict liability crime or they would kill you, do you think that you would still be convicted? NO.

You are not only a joke and a loser, you are a liar as well. By the way, you must be a very busy "lawyer" considering you have posted on this forum almost 2000 times in less than a year. Get a life. As far as I am concerned, this thread is dead.

 

[CarlJStoneham]

The first link appears to refer to English Law, so I'm not sure it's entirely relevant to the discussion (though I do know our law is based on English law), but the reverse burden discussion WAS interesting and the "State of Affairs crime" does help clarify what you're saying. The second link was great and would have been great on my first business law exam in college (though I did get a "B+" ).

Now that I know what you're saying, I can correctly formulate my answer Strict Liability Crimes DO carry intent. The difference is that the intent is inferred from the action itself and is proved by the state from independent evidence, not necessarily the conduct. Nevertheless, mental state is still present. To my mind, simple proof the fact that all crimes require intent is that there are often different requirements for mentally handicapped individuals. A mentally handicapped person could be prosecuted for a strict liability crime (such as statutory rape mentioned in your second link) and still not be convicted because their mental state was such that no crime was committed.

Again, I think this all may be a semantic issue. Mens rea is required. How it is proved, however, may vary wildly. Just saying "I didn't intend to do this" may not be sufficient since the act itself may carry intent due to independent evidence. Nevertheless, the intent is still there. Right?

 

[CarlJStoneham]

OK. Researching more, understanding better...

Strict Liability offenses are crimes where the state has overcome the MR requirement with independent evidence, right? I guess I'm still a bit confused about why they would still be labeled as "crimes", but I'm not a lawyer. I shall continue my research...

Edit:
To overcome presumption of MR...

o Statutory crime is not derived from the common law
o Evident legislative policy that is undermined by MR requirement
o Standard imposed by statute is reasonable and adherence is not unreasonable to follow
o Penalty is small
o Conviction does not gravely besmirch the defendant
§ Holders vs. US 8th circuit court

Right?

Edit: Maine Legal Code as example
As used in this section, "strict liability crime" means a crime that, as legally defined, does not include a culpable mental state element with respect to any of the elements of the crime and thus proof by the State of a culpable state of mind as to that crime is not required. (Title 17A, Pt 1, Chap 2, §34.4a)

 

[You Are Guilty]

That Maine definition is probaly the most straight forward. "Intent to act", is presumed from the act itself (which, as a practical matter, just shifts the burden of proof onto the accused). As noted, this is mostly done since proof of intent for certain crimes is difficult, if not impossible, to prove.

There are potential defenses to strict liability offenses, (although a "gun to the head" doesn't give you the right to commit murder as our idiot co-poster seems to think), but they are few and far between, and certainly none which apply to the original poster.

Essentially, no "criminal intent" is required to be guilty, which is why deliberately walking through a turnstile in the subway without paying equals a ticket.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Now I see how you make arguments--you put words in my mouth and then say they are incorrect. When did I say strict liability statutes are not constitutional? I said the requirement for mens rea is based in the constitution. Even strict liability statutes are not absolute. If someone held a gun to your head and told you to commit a strict liability crime or they would kill you, do you think that you would still be convicted? NO.

You are not only a joke and a loser, you are a liar as well. By the way, you must be a very busy "lawyer" considering you have posted on this forum almost 2000 times in less than a year. Get a life. As far as I am concerned, this thread is dead.

If you hadn't sunk past "imbecile" into "idiot" in your last post, I might have spent the 60 seconds to point out the stupidity of your most recent ramblings.

But here's something to chew on as you walk your newspaper route tomorrow morning - ever hear the term "seniority"? Know what that means in the legal field? Tip: It's what lets me look out my office window at the Brooklyn Bridge and post here while you sell oranges on the side of the freeway.


Incidentally, have you wondered why none of the other attorneys who post here haven't jumped in this post to tell me how wrong I am and how right you are? How odd.

 

[jkruler]

That Maine definition is probaly the most straight forward. "Intent to act", is presumed from the act itself (which, as a practical matter, just shifts the burden of proof onto the accused). As noted, this is mostly done since proof of intent for certain crimes is difficult, if not impossible, to prove.

There are potential defenses to strict liability offenses, (although a "gun to the head" doesn't give you the right to commit murder as our idiot co-poster seems to think), but they are few and far between, and certainly none which apply to the original poster.

Essentially, no "criminal intent" is required to be guilty, which is why deliberately walking through a turnstile in the subway without paying equals a ticket.

Once again YAG decided to put words in my mouth. Did I say putting a gun to your head allows you to commit murder? First of all KILLING SOMEONE IS NOT A STRICT LIABILITY CRIME! Ever hear of self defense? Second, we were talking about Speeding, and yes, IF SOMEONE PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND TELLS YOU TO SPEED, YOU CAN SPEED TO SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE.
I new you were incapable of understanding the concept of strict liablity.

WARNING--YAG IS NOT AN ATTORNEY (But he plays one on the the internet).
Even a legal aide attorney wouldn't have the time to keep up with your forum addiction. Get a life, and GET A JOB.

 

[CarlJStoneham]

"Intent to act", is presumed from the act itself (which, as a practical matter, just shifts the burden of proof onto the accused).

Still, this sounds like the MR requirement has not been eliminated so much as satisfied "out of court" and that if I am able to prove that intent was not present in a particular case, then a crime has not accurred (i.e. a 32 year-old Down's Syndrome seduced by a 16 year-old girl might not be found guilty of statutory rape...). So is intent really absent in a SL Crime or, like I said, has it been satisfied elsewhere in order to make the crime easier to prosecute. Again, I'm not thinking of intent as "I meant to do something wrong", just "I meant to do this act."

 

[jkruler]

Still, this sounds like the MR requirement has not been eliminated so much as satisfied "out of court" and that if I am able to prove that intent was not present in a particular case, then a crime has not accurred (i.e. a 32 year-old Down's Syndrome seduced by a 16 year-old girl might not be found guilty of statutory rape...). So is intent really absent in a SL Crime or, like I said, has it been satisfied elsewhere in order to make the crime easier to prosecute. Again, I'm not thinking of intent as "I meant to do something wrong", just "I meant to do this act."

Stricty Scrutiny offenses such as statutory rape eliminate some of the mental state requirements, but not all of them. What strict scrutiny really does is limit the scope of available defenses to a very small range. To say that a person who commits a strict scrutiny crime has no defense based on mental state, would be incorrect. A valid defense to most non-strict scrutiny crimes would be mistake of fact. Example: If a hunter sees an object that looks like a deer and shoots at it, but it turns out it was actually a person wearing (for whatever reason) deer-like camouflage, the hunter would have a valid defense based on mistake of fact, because the required mental state would be missing. With strict liability crimes, mistake of fact will not act as a valid defense. Therefore if a girl tells you she is 25, and looks 25, but she is really 15, and you sleep with her, you would still be guilty. However, in your hypothetical, regarding the person with Down's Syndrome, the defense would be legal insanity (A disease of the mind causing a person to lack the ability to know or understand the wrongfulness of his actions) and would be a valid defense in you hypothetical.
With regard to Mens Rea, much of the confusion/debate comes from how broadly you define the term. Narrowly, construed mens rea merely distinguishes between acts that are inadvertant or accidental acts from intentional ones. With more broad definition would refer to the overall state of mind of the actor. While strict liablity crimes remove the requirment for the narrow definition of mens rea, they do not completely remove all of the requirements of the broad definition.

 

[CarlJStoneham]

Ahhh. Makes sense. Practically, Mens Rea is absent from SL Crimes, but technically it's there...? In my reading, I'm understand the reasoning behind SL Crimes to be that proving MR would be an unreasonable burden on the state (i.e. proving that every person meant to speed) and would effectively thwart the purpose of the law for a relatively minor offense.

Fascinating discussion. Again, wish I'd stuck with law, but I'm just too darn lazy. Teaching Math to high school kids is right up my alley...

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I'm sorry, but if you can't understand simple English logic, how can you teach math? OP's question was answered long ago and you hijacked this thread to get attention and demonstrate your ignorance. Please spend your time being kind to your wife. Have you got her the candy and flowers? Have you scheduled the Spa day? That is your homework.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Once again YAG decided to put words in my mouth. Did I say putting a gun to your head allows you to commit murder? First of all KILLING SOMEONE IS NOT A STRICT LIABILITY CRIME! Ever hear of self defense? Second, we were talking about Speeding, and yes, IF SOMEONE PUTS A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND TELLS YOU TO SPEED, YOU CAN SPEED TO SAVE YOUR OWN LIFE.

Gee, self-defense? Is that what you argued before the State locked you in that little rubber room? Because only someone as insane as you could mix up the clearly different defenses of "self-defense", "duress" and "necessity".

WARNING--YAG IS NOT AN ATTORNEY (But he plays one on the the internet).
Even a legal aide attorney wouldn't have the time to keep up with your forum addiction. Get a life, and GET A JOB.

Whoops! That statement, my addle-minded little monkey, is libel. But it does prove me wrong on one account - you are obviously not even competent enough to sell oranges on the freeway. A shame too. I hear there was a real good crop this year.

 

[ENASNI]

Um

I'm sorry, but if you can't understand simple English logic, how can you teach math? OP's question was answered long ago and you hijacked this thread to get attention and demonstrate your ignorance. Please spend your time being kind to your wife. Have you got her the candy and flowers? Have you scheduled the Spa day? That is your homework.

Doc... His wife ran away with the fiberglass guy a long time ago.

Jkruler... maybe I can train you.. say after me.
"naranjas naranjas... almost free for you..."

Stay away from the big metal things, they are CARS. go vroom vroom.

 

[jkruler]

Gee, self-defense? Is that what you argued before the State locked you in that little rubber room? Because only someone as insane as you could mix up the clearly different defenses of "self-defense", "duress" and "necessity".



Whoops! That statement, my addle-minded little monkey, is libel. But it does prove me wrong on one account - you are obviously not even competent enough to sell oranges on the freeway. A shame too. I hear there was a real good crop this year.

I stated self defense as an example for why Murder is not a stict liability crime. I did not say that holding a gun to your head would be constitute self defense. If you can't read stop posting. And if you expect anyone to believe that you are an attorney when you thought that murder was strict liablity you are mistaken. And by the way, where are the "other attorneys" that are saying you are right and I am wrong? The bigger your lies get, the more obovious it is you are lying. Anyway, I will call your bluff. Give me the address of your office overlooking the BK bridge, and I will be there tomorrow at noon.

 

[You Are Guilty]

I stated self defense as an example for why Murder is not a stict liability crime. I did not say that holding a gun to your head would be constitute self defense. If you can't read stop posting. And if you expect anyone to believe that you are an attorney when you thought that murder was strict liablity you are mistaken. And by the way, where are the "other attorneys" that are saying you are right and I am wrong? The bigger your lies get, the more obovious it is you are lying. Anyway, I will call your bluff. Give me the address of your office overlooking the BK bridge, and I will be there tomorrow at noon.

Gee, thanks, but I prefer that crazy people stay out of my office, call it one of my funny quirks. But please continue to defame me, I really could use a plaintiff's libel case to add to my portfolio.

And to address another of your idiotic comments:

You Are Guilty
Senior Member

Join Date: 06-29-2004
Total Posts: 1,987 (6.58 posts per day)

jkruler
Junior Member

Join Date: 04-24-2005
Total Posts: 19 (6.03 posts per day)

So exactly where in the .53/posts per day does one need to "get a life"? Because it would seem you are in need of taking your own advice.


PS: Do keep up your insane rambling. At the rate you're going, you'll only need a few more responses till you're banned for stupidity

 

[jkruler]

Gee, thanks, but I prefer that crazy people stay out of my office, call it one of my funny quirks. But please continue to defame me, I really could use a plaintiff's libel case to add to my portfolio.

And to address another of your idiotic comments:



So exactly where in the .53/posts per day does one need to "get a life"? Because it would seem you are in need of taking your own advice.


PS: Do keep up your insane rambling. At the rate you're going, you'll only need a few more responses till you're banned for stupidity

6 post average over last three days you moron. I'm off from work this week. You have averaged more than that over the course of an entire year. Have you been off for the entire year?
Libel? really? What do you consider stating that I have a newspaper route and sell oranges?