Id like to say more about Thought Crime in the US.I have not been challenged on this, but I want to clarify my point. First I would like to say that legally there are two parts of a crime Mens Rea mens re·a menz ˈrēə/ nounLAW the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused. (thank you google) And Actus rea: To establish actus reus, a lawyer must prove that the accused party was responsible for a deed prohibited by criminal law. Actus reus is commonly defined as a criminal act that was the result of voluntary bodily movement. Crime Library: Actus Reus | Crime Morbid Anatomy Museum Now if an act is legal except in certain circumstances - such as buying a gun - for a crime to have been committed the courts must prove that the defendant actually committed an illegal act (in the case of our gun purchase that the person was in a group that was a convicted felon, or mental patient, etc.) In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least one overt act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. Conspiracy (criminal) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(criminal) Wikipedia That being established I would like to address a particular case: These are the undisputed facts: 1: Defendants girlfriend was ill with a cold 2: Defendants girlfriend was a known drug addict 3: Defendant purchased for his girlfriend 2 boxes of pseudoephedrine cold pills 4: These pills were used for the manufacture of Methamphetamine. Now his defense was that he purchased the pills for his sick girlfriend for her illness (cold) and had no intention of them being used for the manufacture of a controlled substance. The states case: 1 the girlfriend was a known addict 2 he knew that pseudoephedrine could be used for the manufacture of methamphetamine 3 He could have purchased a different cold pill 4 therefor he knowingly (mens rea) and actively (actus rea) contributed to the manufacture of a controlled substance. But if you break the case down you get this 1 her addict condition is superseded by her illness. Somebodies state of recovery should not effect there medical help.(hence the reason for privacy laws in the medical field) 2 This is common knowledge, and should be irrelevant as virtually anybody with a high school education knows this. 3 There is no criminal penalty for purchasing one product over another. This is the nature of free market, capitalism, or any other name you choose. The government should not dictate which products from many that you choose. Can you imagine today everyone must but Ford moter cars but I dont like ford too bad its the law The defendant can choose whatever product they wish, for whatever reason they wish including by the request of the girlfriend. There is no crime here, if it was everyone who has picked up a prescription or over the counter drug for a sick friend or loved one would be in PRISON. Therefore the act itself is LEGAL Actus Reas does not exist in this crime. The thing that makes this crime a crime is purely mens rea. It comes down to the INTENT of the defendant, and as the prosecution can not PROVE what was in the defendants mind this crime should never be able to be convicted. Again how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt what someone was thinking? I am the ultimate authority over my brain if I say under oath that I was thinking THIS at this time how can you find an expert that can say otherwise? But the courts have shifted the burden of proof onto the defendant for he must prove that their thoughts were NOT criminal. Again how can you prove thought? Either way its impossible. Hence thought crime. So to sum up Thought Crime doing a legal act that, because of your thought process, becomes illigal! And for the record people are in prison for this very scenario, conspiracy crimes are the easiest for prosecutors to convict on. Mostly because of this shift of burden of proof. Thanks for sticking with me I know it was long
Posted on: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:44:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015