Comment by _8j50 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _8j50 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That means the person is liable for their mental state correct? As in they could have taken actions to prevent that situation but they intentionally chose not to?

With possession laws and statutory rape for example, the liability is that a reasonable person is expected by law to take steps to prevent their posession of co trolled substance or in case of statutory rape to discover the age of their partner. Intent does not need to be proven because the law (controversialy) defines the action to be sufficient proof of criminal intent.

Case in point: a mentally handicapped person or a small child cannot be convicted of these crimes, even under strict liability because they are incapable of criminal intent(and therefore criminal liability). even with intent or strict liability identical to that of a sane reasonable person,their inability to reason sufficiently means their intent is not considered criminal. I say that as argument that if strict liability has nothing to do with intent then inability to reason is irrelevant,because if for example mental handicap exempts a person of strict liability,it is because they are not behaving with reason and awareness of their actions and intent right? Or if someone (say a policeman) throws a bag of cocaine at you and you catch it,are you liable under strict liability? (Not being rhetorical,Honestly curious)

Strict liability does mean intent does not need to be proven but only because the law defines the action sufficient proof of criminal intent. If you can defend against this "proof" ,will you still be liable? I mean, it is my understanding that if you prove someone planted drugs to frame you or that your sexual partner showed fraudulent evidence (fake ID for example) of their age you will not be held liable, is that not the case?

No, that means what they thought or intended has absolutely no bearing on if they are guilty of having committed the crime.

The thought side of a crime, or the intent is mens rea, while the action of that crime is actus rea.

Normally in a crime both factor into the decision. For instance, should you murder somebody you committed the act of murder. What you intended or thought about before or during is the intent side or the mens rea part. Planned and murdered is a different charge than accidentally killed somebody.

So suppose we say the bar for murder is mens rea of "acting knowingly", and the act of the victim dying by your direction action.

But, manslaughter is mens rea of "acting with negligence", and the act of the victim dying by your direction action.

These are in effect two different crimes. The difference between them is what your intention was. If you want certain classes of murder you have to prove premeditated intent, because it's a part of the crime.

Now, strict liability says, "Mens rea does not matter here, it is not a part of the definition of this crime." What you thought or intended is simply not a part of what the court is there to consider.

The court is only there to consider is the action was done by you, and if so, you are guilty.

Edit: The handicap and small child, as far as I understand are not protected from being prosecuted in a strict liability charge in a court, but are simply less likely to make their way to a court.

> Now, strict liability says, "Mens rea does not matter here, it is not a part of the definition of this crime." What you thought or intended is simply not a part of what the court is there to consider. The court is only there to consider is the action was done by you, and if so, you are guilty.

I don't think this is an entirely accurate characterization. Strict liability is more of an assertion that improper intent is a foregone conclusion, i.e. improper intent is a necessary condition for the statute violation to occur in the first place, because people are responsible for taking precaution not to violate the statute.

> Edit: The handicap and small child, as far as I understand are not protected from being prosecuted in a strict liability charge in a court, but are simply less likely to make their way to a court.

The distinction is actually relevant to this scenario. Young children and people with significant mental disability are incapable of committing crimes (even statutory crimes) by the principle of criminal responsibility. It is not the case that statute law applies as you have described, because were it so it would also apply in scenarios where the perpetrator has immunity on account of inability to have criminal responsibility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com