Is Mens Rea Outdated?

[Aimless]

I didn't realize that the judicial system is meant to be based on maximizing profit.

It isn't (except for prison contractors ) but I think you can argue that a judicial system has a responsibility to work towards the overall betterment of society and that's hard to do if you forbid cost-benefit considerations.

[Loki]

It isn't (except for prison contractors ) but I think you can argue that a judicial system has a responsibility to work towards the overall betterment of society and that's hard to do if you forbid cost-benefit considerations.

I take it you're against giving death row inmates extra appeals then? Because that would save millions per person. Heck, the government and insurance agencies don't even value a human life at that high a price, let alone for a criminal.

[Aimless]

I take it you're against giving death row inmates extra appeals then? Because that would save millions per person.

... or you could just abolish the death penalty. Way to think outside the box genius

[Loki]

Or we could just execute murderers after one appeal, within a year of sentencing. Imagine how much money we'd save.

And no, this is not my actual view.

[Flixy]

It isn't (except for prison contractors ) but I think you can argue that a judicial system has a responsibility to work towards the overall betterment of society and that's hard to do if you forbid cost-benefit considerations.

Or we could just execute murderers after one appeal, within a year of sentencing. Imagine how much money we'd save.

And no, this is not my actual view.

You could also execute them on arrest!

And making sure innocent people aren't sentenced to death counts as "overall betterment of society" to me, by the way.

[Loki]

And making sure innocent people aren't sentenced to death counts as "overall betterment of society" to me, by the way.

While protecting society is not?

[LittleFuzzy]

And the context here is that someone who has committed two felonies and knows that committing another one would get them life in prison nevertheless commits the third crime. The person is not only a threat on society because of their lack of concern for the safety and property of others, but also because the person isn't rational enough to put his own life above that of any benefit obtained from another crime.

"Threat to society" is, in this context, socialist tripe that you should be ashamed of trying to peddle. A violent criminal is a threat to the individuals he might give direct physical harm, and an uncomfortable irritant *source of fear and anxiety* for anyone else. A non-violent injurious criminal *i.e. non-violent theft and white collar crime* doesn't even add up to that much. And then there's the vast class of victimless "criminals" in our system who never amount to anything more than irritants. We should jail people for life because encountering them on the street makes us feel emotionally uncomfortable? Let's jail the indigent then too.

[Hazir]

No, I think the third violation has to be after serving time for the first two.

And the same is true of a murderer who got caught after his third victim?

[Loki]

And the same is true of a murderer who got caught after his third victim?

I don't think a murderer should be getting life for a third strike; they shouldn't be let out after the first one.

[Aimless]

Or we could just execute murderers after one appeal, within a year of sentencing. Imagine how much money we'd save.

Sure, you would save a lot of money. Maybe you should set up a cost-benefit analysis, taking into consideration eg. the basic tenets of your justice system and see where you end up!

[Loki]

Sure, you would save a lot of money. Maybe you should set up a cost-benefit analysis, taking into consideration eg. the basic tenets of your justice system and see where you end up!

I would imagine that most people would be willing to have society pay the $50k a year for some additional peace of mind.

[Hazir]

I don't think a murderer should be getting life for a third strike; they shouldn't be let out after the first one.

But that convenient dodge doesn't answer the question.

[Loki]

But that convenient dodge doesn't answer the question.

That makes no sense. The three strike rule is meant to supplement existing punishments, not replace them. It doesn't say that you have to be convicted of three felonies to get life. It says if you get three felonies, you must get life. That doesn't preclude a life sentence for fewer crimes...

[Khendraja'aro]

Then why are you viewing the third crime in isolation from the criminal's prior acts? Is the very fact that they are willing to commit a felony after being twice convicted of other felonies not a reason to take this person off the streets for good?

That is not what he said at all Loki. Let me point out the relevant section:

Of course a person's history should have bearing on the sentencing. That does not mean that I support automatic life sentences for third offenses. I know this may be hard to understand for you, but the world is not black and white, and neither are my opinions, no matter how many smileys you add your replies.

I weep for your students if you're that inept at comprehending written words.

That makes no sense. The three strike rule is meant to supplement existing punishments, not replace them. It doesn't say that you have to be convicted of three felonies to get life. It says if you get three felonies, you must get life. That doesn't preclude a life sentence for fewer crimes...

Of course it replaces existing punishment. And here's a fun fact: Recidivism rates shrink with the age of the offender.

http://www.trowbridgefoundation.org/...recidivism.pdf

For non-violent crimes, the two groups both virtually ceased reoffending by their late 40’s. Similarly, for non-sexual violent crimes, the two groups both virtually ceased re-offending by their late 40’s, with the high scorers actually committing fewer offenses than the low scorers. This effect was even more pronounced for violent crimes, with the high scorers committing fewer offenses than the low-scorers after their early 40’s.

Just an excerpt. So, what exactly is the rationale for "life" again? When even psychopaths are rarely dangerous after they've turned 50, let alone 60 or even 70?

[Loki]

And I weep for anyone who has the misfortune of engaging you in personal communication. God knows how you managed to avoid being isolated by all your peers.

[Khendraja'aro]

So, you will not address the valid point that your argument "They're dangerous! And will always be!" is false since, as I have just shown you, recidivism shrinks with age?

Thought as much. Loki does not address points which prove him false.

[Ominous Gamer]

So, you will not address the valid point that your argument "They're dangerous! And will always be!" is false since, as I have just shown you, recidivism shrinks with age?

Thought as much. Loki does not address points which prove him false.

He also ignored Fuzzy and myself when we brought up non-dangerous felonies.

[Khendraja'aro]

He also ignored Fuzzy and myself when we brought up non-dangerous felonies.

For those, recidivism shrinks even faster...

... maybe he's taken his screen name too seriously?

[Dreadnaught]

I think it's worth separating this issue from jailtime for violent criminals and the kinds of people Flixy posted about —*folks who run afoul of extremely specific environmental or procedural laws, which make them culpable for enormous amounts of jailtime and legal expenses.

It seems like the concept of Mens Rea is fundamentally not compatible with the modern state, which concerns me because the modern state shouldn't become too distant from the mental grasp of ordinary individuals.

[Lebanese Dragon]

This fits in well with your TED talks video minx, the need for practical wisdom in family, and work, instead of sticks and carrots. To put the judgement back in being a judge.

[CitizenCain]

And the context here is that someone who has committed two felonies and knows that committing another one would get them life in prison nevertheless commits the third crime. The person is not only a threat on society because of their lack of concern for the safety and property of others, but also because the person isn't rational enough to put his own life above that of any benefit obtained from another crime.

So, for example, the orchid aficionado from Flixy's story should be put away for life, if as a younger man he stole a bicycle and punched a cop who had it coming?

Great reasoning there.

And, I hate to be the one to tell you this, because it means you somehow avoided learning it before, but zero-tolerance shit (like "three strikes") and the perverse corruption of our legal system both serve to make society far less safe, not more safe.

Criminals, that is "actual" criminals with nothing to lose tend to exhibit rational behavior patterns, which generally means more violence and more bodies. Someone going away for 25-life on a bullshit RICO charge, or because an armed robbery goes bad and some dumbass clerk gets himself shot, gets every incentive to kill everyone, and none to show any mercy. And you can hem and haw all you want about Mr.-3-times-felony-theft-bicycle being a danger to society, but nothing's going to make him more dangerous than telling him he will die inside a jail cell no matter what he does, as is the case with 3 strikes bullshit.

And of course, this perverse corruption of our justice system, where everyone is a federal felon makes us all less safe in both the obvious ways and the less obvious ones. Obviously, that anyone of us can be jailed because someone else makes a mistake that violates some statute that no one within 100 miles has even heard of is a serious danger. But more importantly, this inexcusable, obscene, bullshit, erodes faith in the system, so that when the time comes for the system to protect people, it's unable to, because people don't trust it. (I don't care for what reason, I will never be a witness for the prosecution, period, for example.) And the less it protects people because people don't trust it, the less people trust it because it doesn't protect them either. And that's a very sharp death spiral right there... one I personally await with bated breath, and still cannot deny is inherently extremely dangerous.

[GGT]

This fits in well with your TED talks video minx, the need for practical wisdom in family, and work, instead of sticks and carrots. To put the judgement back in being a judge.

Edit:

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Pleading ignorance to a law is not a defense for violating that law. Those are a couple of layperson legal maxims, that have been around for decades. Are those outdated, too?

[Hazir]

That makes no sense. The three strike rule is meant to supplement existing punishments, not replace them. It doesn't say that you have to be convicted of three felonies to get life. It says if you get three felonies, you must get life. That doesn't preclude a life sentence for fewer crimes...

Interesting to see you do understand that makes no sense, yet you are in favour of a legal abomination like 'three strikes'.

Sentencing should be a function of the crime you have been found guilty of and the risks you pose for society. It should not be mandated by a system that lacks legitimacy if only for the fact that you are effectively put back on trial -also- for a previous crime you have been convicted of and recieved your punishment for.

[agamemnus]

No, it's not outdated. People (prosecutors, etc., etc.) are just getting dumber.

[Hazir]

No, it's not outdated. People (prosecutors, etc., etc.) are just getting dumber.

I think the actual problem is that people are getting too risk-averse; everybody is so affraid of making mistakes that they prefer 'automated' processes over a proces in which they actually have to weigh and decide.

[Veldan Rath]

I think the actual problem is that people are getting too risk-averse; everybody is so affraid of making mistakes that they prefer 'automated' processes over a proces in which they actually have to weigh and decide.

Bingo, just like zero tolerance dumbassery in schools.

[Lewkowski]

THREE pickup trucks pulled up outside George Norris’s home in Spring, Texas. Six armed police in flak jackets jumped out. Thinking they must have come to the wrong place, Mr Norris opened his front door, and was startled to be shoved against a wall and frisked for weapons. He was forced into a chair for four hours while officers ransacked his house. They pulled out drawers, rifled through papers, dumped things on the floor and eventually loaded 37 boxes of Mr Norris’s possessions onto their pickups. They refused to tell him what he had done wrong. “It wasn’t fun, I can tell you that,” he recalls.

Mr Norris was 65 years old at the time, and a collector of orchids. He eventually discovered that he was suspected of smuggling the flowers into America, an offence under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. This came as a shock. He did indeed import flowers and sell them to other orchid-lovers. And it was true that his suppliers in Latin America were sometimes sloppy about their paperwork. In a shipment of many similar-looking plants, it was rare for each permit to match each orchid precisely.

In March 2004, five months after the raid, Mr Norris was indicted, handcuffed and thrown into a cell with a suspected murderer and two suspected drug-dealers. When told why he was there, “they thought it hilarious.” One asked: “What do you do with these things? Smoke ’em?”

Prosecutors described Mr Norris as the “kingpin” of an international smuggling ring. He was dumbfounded: his annual profits were never more than about $20,000. When prosecutors suggested that he should inform on other smugglers in return for a lighter sentence, he refused, insisting he knew nothing beyond hearsay.

He pleaded innocent. But an undercover federal agent had ordered some orchids from him, a few of which arrived without the correct papers. For this, he was charged with making a false statement to a government official, a federal crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Since he had communicated with his suppliers, he was charged with conspiracy, which also carries a potential five-year term.

As his legal bills exploded, Mr Norris reluctantly changed his plea to guilty, though he still protests his innocence. He was sentenced to 17 months in prison. After some time, he was released while his appeal was heard, but then put back inside. His health suffered: he has Parkinson’s disease, which was not helped by the strain of imprisonment. For bringing some prescription sleeping pills into prison, he was put in solitary confinement for 71 days. The prison was so crowded, however, that even in solitary he had two room-mates.

And at the same time we let out rapists early due to overcrowded prisons.... WHAT THE FUCK?

[Ominous Gamer]

That story is so full holes, but when you present only one side of a story, thats usually what you end up with.

[Nessus]

Thank you for using the quote function, Lewkowski.

[Lewkowski]

Thank you for using the quote function, Lewkowski.

It was an article, I wasn't quoting anyone on the thread.