|
dwizz
Stranger
Registered: 06/01/09
Posts: 3
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?!
#10435545 - 06/01/09 01:57 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
In Aug 2002 my party got busted, and they found syringes with mushroom spores in them. When we purchased them on the net they were sold to us as hobby syringes(by the way these were not needles intended for your arm but they had a metal spike so were viewed that way). They also found a bong but after 6 months of waiting to get charged, I received a statement in the mail saying there was "insufficient evidence" and that it was dropped. My buddies name was on the box of syringes so he was charged too. I jus claimed them so noone would get in trouble, i was trying to shoulder the blame at the time cause it was my party). Now a few weeks ago my friend went to the police station to get his records for a program in college and they said there were charges that got mixed up back then and that they needed us to go to court for it. I currently go to school for medicine and a charge like this would ruin more than 2 years of schooling if i end up receiving something about this. The charge is for having syringes without a prescription. Is this possible and what could I do, this was nearly 7 years ago!? I know I'll probably need a lawyer but being a student, extra money is hard to come by. Need Help!!
|
sunshine
Sin18DwireWuTang


Registered: 04/03/04
Posts: 43,592
Loc: higher plane of sex
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: dwizz]
#10435557 - 06/01/09 01:59 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I could solve all your problems, but I have a general fear of problem solving.
-------------------- One Love True Indeed. Have Good Trips. Mike/sunshine's mom.
|
RoosterCogburn
Fearless,one-eyed U.S.Marshall



Registered: 08/25/06
Posts: 8,508
Loc: Dirty South, NJ
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: dwizz]
#10435558 - 06/01/09 02:00 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dwizz said:
syringes without a prescription.
Is that illegal? I just bought a bunch withOUT a script.
Edited by RoosterCogburn (06/01/09 02:00 PM)
|
GetTheFuckOut
Long Gone.


Registered: 10/11/01
Posts: 60,898
Loc:
Last seen: 13 years, 6 months
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: dwizz]
#10435561 - 06/01/09 02:00 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
you'd do better with this in the security forum
-------------------- < I have logged in this once so that I can set the "last seen" feature up. let the faggots flow forth into OTD and have it. Its funny how they all grew nuts after I left. I'm not here, I'm not reading, but I urge you all to keep melting down over me. I know, I hurt alot of people, and they deserved it. epic win for me, epic fail for you. ythan, you rock dude. i feel that my time at the shroomery was very positive and enjoyable, but this site is no longer for me. im not mad or upset or disappointed, i just want no part in a pg rated faggot festival. <
|
sunshine
Sin18DwireWuTang


Registered: 04/03/04
Posts: 43,592
Loc: higher plane of sex
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: GetTheFuckOut]
#10435609 - 06/01/09 02:10 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Sounds like you should drop out of medical school and be a career criminal.
-------------------- One Love True Indeed. Have Good Trips. Mike/sunshine's mom.
|
HagbardCeline
Student-Teacher-Student-Teacher



Registered: 05/10/03
Posts: 10,028
Loc: Overjoyed, at the bottom ...
Last seen: 20 days, 10 hours
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: RoosterCogburn]
#10435799 - 06/01/09 02:47 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
It isn't illegal in the US.
-------------------- I keep it real because I think it is important that a highly esteemed individual such as myself keep it real lest they experience the dreaded spontaneous non-existance of no longer keeping it real. - Hagbard Celine
|
Worf
Lt. Commander

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 15,663
Loc: Final Frontier
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: dwizz]
#10435834 - 06/01/09 02:56 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
yer fucked dude. having spores is worse than having heroin. its a cat 2 narcotic, not only that but spores are more potent.
--------------------
Kira: What do Klingons dream about? Worf: Things that would send cold chills down your spine, and wake you up in the middle of the night. No, it is better you do not know
|
Worf
Lt. Commander

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 15,663
Loc: Final Frontier
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: dwizz]
#10435836 - 06/01/09 02:57 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
yer best bet is to call their bluff. they have to prove there are spores in there and the only way to do that is to either A) grow the mushrooms or B) use and electron microscope. Chances are they don't have an electron microscrope unless they have a large CSI type lab, but its your call.
--------------------
Kira: What do Klingons dream about? Worf: Things that would send cold chills down your spine, and wake you up in the middle of the night. No, it is better you do not know
|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL



Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Worf]
#10435867 - 06/01/09 03:04 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
i don't think he is being busted for the spores, but instead for possession of a syringe without a prescription.
no idea what state you are in OP, but mushroom spore syringes are pretty obviously not syringes you use for IV'ing stuff, so with a somewhat competent lawyer you should be able to get the charges dropped.
--------------------
|
Worf
Lt. Commander

Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 15,663
Loc: Final Frontier
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Krishna]
#10435888 - 06/01/09 03:07 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Krishna said: i don't think he is being busted for the spores, but instead for possession of a syringe without a prescription.
no idea what state you are in OP, but mushroom spore syringes are pretty obviously not syringes you use for IV'ing stuff, so with a somewhat competent lawyer you should be able to get the charges dropped.
you do realize that he is a puppet right?
--------------------
Kira: What do Klingons dream about? Worf: Things that would send cold chills down your spine, and wake you up in the middle of the night. No, it is better you do not know
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Worf]
#10435921 - 06/01/09 03:13 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
outputrotation said: yer best bet is to call their bluff. they have to prove there are spores in there and the only way to do that is to either A) grow the mushrooms or B) use and electron microscope. Chances are they don't have an electron microscrope unless they have a large CSI type lab, but its your call.
7 years ago... think they still have the evidence?
they can try and get him for paraphernalia but everything listed would be misdemeanor shit, a judge would laugh at a prosecutor on that one
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Worf]
#10435941 - 06/01/09 03:16 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
outputrotation said: you do realize that he is a puppet right?
we're all puppets, drop the charade
|
Dr. uarewotueat
Peyote Farmer


Registered: 09/02/06
Posts: 16,545
Loc: Uk / Philippines
Last seen: 10 years, 9 months
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! (moved) [Re: dwizz]
#10435954 - 06/01/09 03:19 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This thread was moved from Off-Topic Discussion.
Reason: -
|
Krishna
कृष्ण,LOL



Registered: 05/08/03
Posts: 23,285
Loc: oakland
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Worf]
#10435959 - 06/01/09 03:20 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
outputrotation said:
Quote:
Krishna said: i don't think he is being busted for the spores, but instead for possession of a syringe without a prescription.
no idea what state you are in OP, but mushroom spore syringes are pretty obviously not syringes you use for IV'ing stuff, so with a somewhat competent lawyer you should be able to get the charges dropped.
you do realize that he is a puppet right?
i actually think it was just somebody unfortunate enough to think OTD was a good place to ask a serious question.
--------------------
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: dwizz]
#10444399 - 06/02/09 09:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
dwizz said: In Aug 2002 my party got busted, and they found syringes with mushroom spores in them. When we purchased them on the net they were sold to us as hobby syringes(by the way these were not needles intended for your arm but they had a metal spike so were viewed that way). They also found a bong but after 6 months of waiting to get charged, I received a statement in the mail saying there was "insufficient evidence" and that it was dropped. My buddies name was on the box of syringes so he was charged too. I jus claimed them so noone would get in trouble, i was trying to shoulder the blame at the time cause it was my party). Now a few weeks ago my friend went to the police station to get his records for a program in college and they said there were charges that got mixed up back then and that they needed us to go to court for it. I currently go to school for medicine and a charge like this would ruin more than 2 years of schooling if i end up receiving something about this. The charge is for having syringes without a prescription. Is this possible and what could I do, this was nearly 7 years ago!? I know I'll probably need a lawyer but being a student, extra money is hard to come by. Need Help!!
You need to tell us:
what specifically where you charged with, if anything (specific law, code number if applicable)
what specifically have you said to the police or authorities?
what stage of the legal proceedings are you in, what has happened?
what legislative jurisdiction does this concern, i.e. what entities laws are you accused of violating?
what actual information have you or your buddy recieved and what did it say? what did his record check say exactly?
what exactly did you possess?
Please clearly answer these questions with objective facts first and then any subjective opinions, i.e. avoid conclusory statements without telling us the objective facts.
Finally, do not admit to anything. If your buddy is charged that's his problem. The authorities are fucked up and its not your problem if they charge yoru friend. Talking will likely only make it easier to convict both of you. It would be best if yoru buddy similarly stfu, though if you tell hiim to and they find out it could mean more charges.
Learn from other peoople's mistakes man. If they have evidence to charge you both before hand, someone else claiming he possesed them is not going to negate that evidence- you'll likely both be charged as codefendants and the admission of one will make it easier to convict the other.
Shut up- period
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: johnm214]
#10446893 - 06/03/09 11:14 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If it's 7 years ago I'd just tell them to fuck off. It's pretty hard to imagine that the statute of limitations hasn't expired, or that they still have the evidence in possession, or that you would reasonably be expected to remember anything about it.
If they don't go for your first blow-off tell them to subpoena you or get a warrant.
This really isn't worth worrying about, but you should look up the law. Most states don't have an anti-syringe law unless it's used as drug paraphernalia. In fact a lot of states give out syringes through needle-exchange programs. In my state it's actually illegal for the pharmacist to ask you what you're using needles for. Sometimes they will ask if you have a script, but that's just to find out what size needle you are supposed to get.
-FF
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: fastfred]
#10451304 - 06/04/09 12:07 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Exactly. I'm guessing its a drug paraphanalia charge and he should be cool unless he talks. They'd have to prove shit I doubt they can prove (unless someone talks)
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: johnm214]
#10453403 - 06/04/09 12:11 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
If it's a misdemeanor, a good lawyer can probably get the op into a pretrial intervention program in which if he completes the terms he will have no record.
That is if there are actually any charges at all which based on that post, I doubt. Cops say all sorts of things and they are usually ignorant of the law. Some cop saw something from back then and wanted to put a scare into the person. I agree with ff in this instance that the statute of limitations has almost certainly passed. Unless you get something from the state attorneys office, don't worry about it.
Talk to a local lawyer in your area if you want a more definitive answer.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
gubi
Shroomaholic


Registered: 05/06/08
Posts: 191
Loc: Middle Earth
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Stonehenge]
#10485250 - 06/10/09 09:40 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Federal Law
Psilocybin mushrooms are not specifically named in the U.S. federal scheduling system, however their two primary active chemicals Psilocybin and Psilocin are both Schedule I in the United States. This makes them illegal to buy, sell, or possess without a DEA license. Fresh and dried psilocybin mushrooms are considered containers of Psilocybin and Psilocin making them illegal to possess. Because spores contain no psilocybin or psilocin, they are legal to sell and possess in all states except California, Georgia and Idaho. Federal law prohibits cultivating mushroom spores into magic mushrooms in all states.
State Law
Psilocybin Mushroom spores are legal to sell and possess in every state except California, Georgia, and Idaho. Possession of fully grown magic mushrooms is illegal in every state in the United States except Florida. Florida stands out because of a decision in 1978 in Fiske v Florida by the Florida Supreme Court which ruled that wild-picked magic mushrooms could not be legally considered "containers" of psilocybin and thus would have to be specifically listed in Florida law by the legislature if they meant to make them illegal. Since the Florida legislature has not chosen to change the laws since then, wild Psilocybin mushrooms are presumptively legal to possess in Florida. This does not mean police won't arrest people for possession of even wild mushrooms, but this has been used as a successful defense against such charges.
You're ok, as long as you don't live in one of the above mentioned states.
-------------------- I haven't failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ Thomas Edison
|
axl
Stranger
Registered: 12/02/08
Posts: 94
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: gubi]
#10487147 - 06/11/09 09:15 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
gubi said: Possession of fully grown magic mushrooms is illegal in every state in the United States except Florida. Florida stands out because of a decision in 1978 in Fiske v Florida by the Florida Supreme Court which ruled that wild-picked magic mushrooms could not be legally considered "containers" of psilocybin and thus would have to be specifically listed in Florida law by the legislature if they meant to make them illegal. Since the Florida legislature has not chosen to change the laws since then, wild Psilocybin mushrooms are presumptively legal to possess in Florida. This does not mean police won't arrest people for possession of even wild mushrooms, but this has been used as a successful defense against such charges.
You're ok, as long as you don't live in one of the above mentioned states. 
Sorry to get off topic-
I think you alluded to it at the end. I just want to clarify that the facts of the Fiske decision were more specifically tailored to someone who is picking magic mushrooms and possibly other wild mushrooms - on the basis that he was randomly picking wild mushrooms and did not realize he had some magic ones.
It is true that the reasoning of the court was much more expansive than the facts required it to be.
I am sincerely interested if you know of other examples and situations where the Fiske defense has been used in Florida.
Thanks.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: axl]
#10494942 - 06/12/09 03:39 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Axl, in many states intent is not an element of possession. That means they don't have to prove that you intended to possess psilocin only that you did possess it.
One cop explained that to me when he was writing a speeding ticket. My spedometer was broken, but that was not an excuse. He told me intent was not an element of the ticket and that it didn't matter if I was trying to speed or even knew that I was speeding. It only mattered that my speed was in excess of the limit. The fact that my spedometer was broken would actually hurt me in court because I could offer no testimony as to my actual speed.
The same thing could come into play with mushrooms. If you claim you don't know what they were then you can't offer testimony saying that they weren't active species. If you did claim to be identifying them you could claim that the cop actually may have mixed some actives in from the ground when you dropped them on the ground.
-FF
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: fastfred]
#10495019 - 06/12/09 03:57 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
"Axl, in many states intent is not an element of possession. That means they don't have to prove that you intended to possess psilocin only that you did possess it."
Intent is a needed part of any crime. It's called the mens rea. We've been over this time and again but a few never seem to grasp it. I can't be bothered to post the info again, do a search.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Stonehenge]
#10496336 - 06/12/09 09:24 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: "Axl, in many states intent is not an element of possession. That means they don't have to prove that you intended to possess psilocin only that you did possess it."
Intent is a needed part of any crime. It's called the mens rea. We've been over this time and again but a few never seem to grasp it. I can't be bothered to post the info again, do a search.
lol, how nice.
Sorry you can't be bothered to "go over this again" or help us "grasp it".
We have indeed been over that and you've never provided any authority for this beyond your say so and links to definitions of "mens rea" that don't answer the question. You need to stop posting your personal convictions when they are contested and you have no authority to support them.
From last time:
1. mens rea, guilty mindest, is not the same as intent, the concious aim to satisfy the particular elements of the relevant offense . Stop telling people these are the same untill you can come up with some law saying so. Where is the intent in mansluaghter? Their is none. Is manslaughter unconstitutional? I guess it is by your calculus. You've never shown mens rea to be equal to intent, and your conflation of the two here is particularly silly give we've been over this before and you've never provided any authority on the fact.
2. you've never shown mens rea to be a federal constitutional minimum for criminal liability and yet you go further and claim not only mens rea but intent needs to be demonstrated? Have you at least figured out where this right comes from? What portion of what amendment? Or are you still working on that one?
Wasn't this the discussion where you were arguing over many pages about hte meaning of a supreme court opinion I cited and then after many pages of your arguments you admitted you hadn't even read the opinion? And then when i was dumbfounded you further went on that it was my fault you were arguing about an opinion you hadn't read because I didn't post the opinion in its entirety on the shroomery- despite the fact I cited it and provided a link?
Hmm... I think I'm getting some insight into how you maintain these crazy beliefs about the law when every authority says your wrong.... You don't read them!
|
axl
Stranger
Registered: 12/02/08
Posts: 94
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Stonehenge]
#10503988 - 06/14/09 10:56 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
This is a semantic debate. Intent falls into the notice category of due process. The intent requirement is balanced against the penalty for the crime. Many traffic violations are strict liability, which do not require intent. This is because the penalty is not considered to violate your due process. When you lose your liberty by being put in prison, some form of intent is definitely required.
While harsher penalties do require intent, intent may be either specific or general. Specific intent is the specific intent to possess psilocybin or whatever the legislature wishes the specific intent to refer to. The traditional way to incorporate specific intent into a statute is to insert the word "knowingly". General intent is merely the intent to possess hallucinogenic mushrooms while unaware that they contain psilocybin.
This is the best I can do to clarify that, since the courts themselves are not a model of consistency.
Anyway I was hoping that someone knew how the Fiske decision has held up in the lower courts in Florida in everyday mushroom possession situations.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: axl]
#10504221 - 06/14/09 12:07 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
axl, most traffic tickets are not crimes, ie misdemeanors or felonies, therefore there is no need for intent. Do a google search on mens rea.
"The traditional way to incorporate specific intent into a statute is to insert the word "knowingly"."
This is correct. If there is no intent there is no crime. If someone put something illegal in your yard and told the cops, the cops would have to show that you knew about it. Having it in your possession is not enough, it has to be knowingly or with intent.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Stonehenge]
#10505842 - 06/14/09 05:34 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Please provide citations for your claims.
As I have said previously, I have never heard any support for the thigns you claim and do not believe you have any law on the subject.
Quote:
Intent falls into the notice category of due process.
Citation? It is a violation of due process to convict someone for manslaughter? That's been a crime forever, your saying that's unconstitutional?
Quote:
Many traffic violations are strict liability, which do not require intent. This is because the penalty is not considered to violate your due process. When you lose your liberty by being put in prison, some form of intent is definitely required.
Citation?
Again, mansluaghter convictions violate due process? Or only if you get jail for it? That's a novel position.
And what is this talk of traffic violations? Are you limiting this to those without jail as a sentence?
Considering you can be arrested for a traffic offense even if the penalty does not include jail as a possible sentence, I don't understand your statement. Its not unconstitutional to arrrest someone going 1 mph over the limit but it is to sentence someone to three days in jail for killing someone after he's had a full proper trial?
Huh? What authority do you have for this?
Quote:
General intent is merely the intent to possess hallucinogenic mushrooms while unaware that they contain psilocybin.
Citation? What is the constitutional distinction between this "general" and "specific" intent you speak of? I don't understand what you are saying or why.
Quote:
This is the best I can do to clarify that, since the courts themselves are not a model of consistency.
Fine, just give us the case law that favors you or give us the case law that vaguely supports you, whatever the case may be re: this lack of clarity. I've never heard of this stuff your saying, and would like to learn about this constitutional limitation.
Given that I can find no authority that says mens rea is required for criminal convictions I would be shocked to find your statement that intent is required to be accurate.
---
Quote:
axl, most traffic tickets are not crimes, ie misdemeanors or felonies, therefore there is no need for intent. Do a google search on mens rea.
Google is not the law, why would anyone want to search google to see what random web pages say when that has nothing to do with your claims regarding intent in the US constitution? (claims you still cannot back up)
And what source do you have that most traffic tickets are not crimes? They almost all are in my state- the only exceptions I can think of are parking tickets in some situations.
Where is this that traffic violations aren't crimes?
edit: fixed botched quote
Edited by johnm214 (06/15/09 08:51 PM)
|
axl
Stranger
Registered: 12/02/08
Posts: 94
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: johnm214]
#10509190 - 06/15/09 07:09 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I don't have time right now to go through citations....honestly I am not even sure by memory if the breakdown of a voluntary act and mental culpability is ever explicitly mentioned in case law. It may just be theory developed by law professors in analysis of constitutional and criminal law. I won't have time to look for myself for two or three weeks.
Manslaughter is not a strict liability crime. The mental culpability must be at least reckless for manslaughter and negligent for negligent homicide (there may be some states that don't distinguish between the two, I'm not sure).
Since negligence traditionally is inherently without intent, you are probably right that we should be saying "mental culpability" instead of "intent"- the Model Penal Code does actually make the distinction. Additionally, the voluntary act for which one is mentally culpable must be the proximate cause of the harm. When I speak of general intent, the general intent for negligence would be the intent to perform a negligent act that proximately causes the injury.
I strongly disagree with states that let police make arrests for offenses that aren't even punishable by jail time. I don't think that is constitutional. If you want to try and make some sense of the court's reasoning in that case, I know it by memory Atwater v. City of Lago Vista (2001). Surprisingly, it was a Justice Souter opinion which I hope will not stand the test of time. We will see how Sotomayer does and maybe if Stevens gets replaced as well the police won't be allowed to take people downtown for offenses not even punishable by jail time. I know the underlying hidden reason was actually to allow the police to perform full searches incident to arrest for basically anything- and I don't think that is constitutional either.
I'll be out for a few weeks but will come back to this then.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: axl]
#10510284 - 06/15/09 11:44 AM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Naw dude, its totally cool.
I'm just saying I disagree with the points I identfieid and that its been gone over (between stonehenge and me) many times.
Now it seems like your saying you feel it might just be some informal doctrine (mens rea anyways) which comports with what I've discovered. The problem I had was folks claiming intent is the same as mens rea or that intent or mens rea is required by the constitution.. It seems like your only saying mens rea is often considered a defacto requirement of criminal law and such, which I can agree with.
Certainly lots has been written about it, I've just never seen (and stonehenge has never cited) anything saying mens rea, let alone intent, is required by the US constiuttion.
So if that's what your saying, then I can agree. certainly most states require mens rea elements in most statutes and even have affirmative defenses where such is lacking. I just don't know of any law saying its required by the US constitution.
Quote:
Manslaughter is not a strict liability crime. The mental culpability must be at least reckless for manslaughter and negligent for negligent homicide (there may be some states that don't distinguish between the two, I'm not sure).
Agreed, and that's the difference between mens rea and intent. With Intent you must conciously decide to commit the elements (all of them or whichever the law requires you have intent regarding) of the offense (killing a person without privledge ). If you didn't so intend but just acted recklessly or didn't act at all when you had a duty to, then you only satisfy mens rea.
In the later you would commit manslaughter, in the previous you would commit murder, or voluntary manslaughter if you had an excusable provocation and didn't have a preexisting intent to kill.
All I was trying to show was that intent isn't required (as stonehenge has said) and that mens rea is not the same as intent- intent being a much more definite and more culpable mental state. Additionally, I can find, and stonehenge has failed to produce, and authority that mens rea is required.;
Basically, I find it dangerous for folks to advice others that things like intent must be proven. It could give folks false hope and even induce reckless behavior (my roomate can't get in trouble for the drugs in my house, they'd have to prove he had intent to posses them or grow them).
Anyways, I think we are in agreement with your latest post.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: axl]
#10511036 - 06/15/09 02:05 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
axl, intent must be present in manslaughter too in order for the person to be guilty. It's part of the mens rea or criminal state of mind. The way they do that, and each state will word it differently, is that you knowingly or intentionally did an act that a person would or should know was likely to lead to death or injury. They aren't saying you tried to kill someone, that would be murder or attempted murder. They are saying that when you got drunk and drove 100 mph in a 30 mph zone, you were acting recklessly in disregard of public safety. It was your choice to get drunk so that does not save you. You chose to drive at a high rate of speed, or you chose to fire your gun in the air knowing the bullet would come down or you did something else that you should have known better than to do.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: axl]
#10512253 - 06/15/09 05:44 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
> When you lose your liberty by being put in prison, some form of intent is definitely required.
So accidental negligence that results in death, where there was no intent to cause death and there was no intent to be negligent, but death was still the outcome of said negligence, cannot result in prison?
By accidental negligence, lets say that I hit the accelerator instead of the brake at a school crosswalk and killed 10 children on the way home from school, crushing them into a bus. I wasn't drunk, drugged, or impaired in any way. I simply made a mistake.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Seuss]
#10512453 - 06/15/09 06:25 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Seuss, that is a borderline situation. It could go either way. I'd hazard a guess that the jury and certainly a judge, would decide it was negligence on your part and you would be found guilty under negligent homicide laws. It's not cut and dried but if they simply let loose anyone who did that and said "oh, my mistake I hit the accelerator instead of the brake" then too many people would get away with murder. "I pulled the trigger instead of just gripping the stock." I aimed for the log with my axe but hit him in the head instead" So on and so on. If you can convince a jury then maybe you'll be let go but it's not so easy to get off. "ooops" is not a fool proof defense.
Plus the fact that there are lesser charges they can always convict you on like reckless driving, not maintaining control of a motor vehicle, etc. You are going to be doing time no matter what.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Stonehenge]
#10513389 - 06/15/09 08:47 PM (14 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: Seuss, that is a borderline situation. It could go either way. I'd hazard a guess that the jury
Seuss is asking a question of law, not of fact. Questions of law don't go to the jury, thus the jury's opinion is irrelevant for whether a criminal conviction may lie under those conceeded events.
Quote:
It's not cut and dried but if they simply let loose anyone who did that and said "oh, my mistake I hit the accelerator instead of the brake" then too many people would get away with murder.
Which has nothing to do with whether the law allows conviction in that case.
Quote:
If you can convince a jury then maybe you'll be let go but it's not so easy to get off. "ooops" is not a fool proof defense.
He's not asking about any affirmative defense, he's asking whether, as a matter of law, a conviction may lie per those events. You've not addressed the question and instead addressed wholly unrelated matters such as the liklihood a jury will convict- wholly irrelevant.
In any case, I thought you said previously that intent was required? In fact I thought we had several conversations where you parroted this claim, including this one, and yet were unable to find any law on the subject and so just issued your own 'rulings' on what the law is despite finding nothing to support you?
Per you, isn't the answer that cuz seuss intentionally drove that this is "intent"? I thought every criminal conviction had to have intent? ----
Obviously the answer to seuss's question is that yeah, you may be convicted where no intent exists. Stonehenge is wrong in saying intent is the same as mens rea, and he's wrong in saying that intent is required for conviction by the constitution. I can also find no authority that says mens rea is required under the constitution for criminal conviction, as stonehenge claims without any authority.
Stonehenge's claim that intent refers to intent to do anything at all is silly and renders the determination meaningless- as everyone will have done something intentionally that is in some way connected to the crime. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. Intent in statutes is not an intent to do anything at all, its an intent to do something specific, an element of the offense. Intent to posses, intent to engage in reckless conduct, intent to kill, et cet. Genercially, intent as an element of the offense would be intent to satisfy the other elements: In seuss's hypothetical the elements would be that you did kill without privledge to do so. As there is no intent to kill, this would be manslaughter. That you intended to wake up or intended to drive or intended to accelerate has nothing to do with the matter- despite your knowledge that their is a chance that all could eventually lead to death.
Stonehenge just uses his own unique vocabulary and speaks stream of conciousness it seems- its the only way I can comport the fact that he continues proffering obviously wrong explanations of the law with his inability to find any legal support for any of them- ever.
|
axl
Stranger
Registered: 12/02/08
Posts: 94
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Seuss]
#10516034 - 06/16/09 09:55 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Ok so I couldn't stay away.
Quote:
Seuss said: >
So accidental negligence that results in death, where there was no intent to cause death and there was no intent to be negligent, but death was still the outcome of said negligence, cannot result in prison?
I need to retract what I said about general intent being the intent to perform a negligent act. That doesn't make any sense.
As for being constitutional, I was thinking of the constitutional right to a jury trial prior to imprisonment- Duncan v. Louisiana (1968). I wouldn't be surprised though if some day the court finds mens rea in the due process clause.
Anyway I knew exactly what FastFred meant when he said some states require intent and some don't.
"Intent" is not the right word to be using Stonehenge. You can say "mens rea," "voluntary act," or "mental culpability," all of which are legal maxims and do have significant case law to support, but are not really explicit anywhere. Also, I think you are wrong about the manslaughter statutes, it would not make sense to purposely negligently do something, and I couldn't find any statutes that used both words.
|
Stonehenge
Alt Center

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: axl]
#10516598 - 06/16/09 12:04 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
axl, what i said was correct. Do a little more digging.
"it would not make sense to purposely negligently do something"
Negligence is failing to take due care and diligence in order to prevent harm. For example, if you threw a brick out of a window without looking to see if anyone was below, that would be negligence and you could be charged for any harm or damage caused.
Intent includes knowingly doing something. If someone puts drugs in your yard, you are in possession of those drugs. Simple possession is not enough for a conviction, you must have put them there or known about it and allowed it. If you have no criminal state of mind, you are not guilty. If you are driving and a kid jumps in front of the car and is killed, you killed the child. Unless you meant to do it or were negligent, you will not be guilty of murder or manslaughter.
-------------------- “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835) Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Stonehenge]
#10518367 - 06/16/09 05:03 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
axl said: Ok so I couldn't stay away.
Quote:
Seuss said: >
So accidental negligence that results in death, where there was no intent to cause death and there was no intent to be negligent, but death was still the outcome of said negligence, cannot result in prison?
I need to retract what I said about general intent being the intent to perform a negligent act. That doesn't make any sense.
As for being constitutional, I was thinking of the constitutional right to a jury trial prior to imprisonment- Duncan v. Louisiana (1968). I wouldn't be surprised though if some day the court finds mens rea in the due process clause.
Anyway I knew exactly what FastFred meant when he said some states require intent and some don't.
"Intent" is not the right word to be using Stonehenge. You can say "mens rea," "voluntary act," or "mental culpability," all of which are legal maxims and do have significant case law to support, but are not really explicit anywhere. Also, I think you are wrong about the manslaughter statutes, it would not make sense to purposely negligently do something, and I couldn't find any statutes that used both words.
yep, I agree.
And yeah, stonehenge is conflating intent with mens rea- as you state, though he is far from consistant, his use of the terms changes with every post, in some posts he clearly is talking about intent in the usual sense. Like you say, mens rea is widely considered an implicit part of most criminal law, but I've never seen any authority that actually holds its a federal constitutional requirement for criminal conviction. Stonehenge has been corrected on his inaccurate usage of the words intent and mens rea many times, and many folks have told him that intent is not required for conviction, but he just ignores them and continues spinning his yarns without concern for their accuracy.
In the post you just made you've cited more law than stonehenge has, ever, so I wouldn't worry about his version of the law- he's never been able to back up the stuff he says, it seems as if he makes it up as he goes along
----
Here's the stuff I've found that lead to the belief that intent and mens rea are not required for conviction under the constitution. The first one says quite plainly that crimes without intent are not unconstitutional per due process, I don't know how stonhenge is getting around this.
Quote:
The mere fact that a state police statute punishes an offense actually committed without regard to intent does not render the statute unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U. S. 57
Compare to stonehenge's decree:
Quote:
Stonehenge said:
Intent is a needed part of any crime. It's called the mens rea. We've been over this time and again but a few never seem to grasp it. I can't be bothered to post the info again, do a search.
Seems pretty clear he is wrong. For laughs, ask him for his citation to the law he relies on- he won't have any. (if I recall correctly the info he refers to is some webpage that discusses generalities and doesn't even purport to concern constitutional requirements in the US for criminal convictions-)
More:
Quote:
It has been objected that punishment of a person for an act in violation of law when ignorant of the facts making it so is an absence of due process of law. But that objection is considered and overruled in Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. Minnesota, 218 U. S. 57, 218 U. S. 69-70, in which it was held that, in the prohibition or punishment of particular acts, the state may, in the maintenance of a public policy, provide "that he who shall do them shall do them at his peril, and will not be heard to plead in defense good faith or ignorance."
United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250
Here's one on mens rea. The state does not have to find mens rea re: the person at all, in this case it was rule dpermisable to presume that if the person was sober that mens rea would be found. No burden at all exists to show that the person actually had mens rea himself, only that he would have had it if he wasn't drunk. This pretty much shatters even the mens rea part of stonehenge's claim in my mind, as the states are relieved of actually demonstrating such\: Montana v. Egelhoff (95-566), 518 U.S. 37 (Plurality and Concurance by ginsburg agree so both cited for this portion)
Plurality Opinion:
Quote:
It is not surprising that many States have held fast to or resurrected the common law rule prohibiting consideration of voluntary intoxication in the determination of mens rea, because that rule has considerable justification [n.3] --which alone casts doubt upon the proposition that the opposite rule is a "fundamental principle."....
The historical record does not leave room for the view that the common law's rejection of intoxication as an "excuse" or "justification" for crime would nonetheless permit the defendant to show that intoxication prevented the requisite mens rea. Hale, Coke and Blackstone were familiar, to say the least, with the concept of mens rea, and acknowledged that drunkenness "deprive[s] men of the use of reason," Hale, supra, at *32; see also Blackstone, supra, at *25. It is inconceivable that they did not realize that an offender's drunkenness might impair his ability to form the requisite intent; and inconceivable that their failure to note this massive exception from the general rule of disregard of intoxication was an oversight. Hale's statement that a drunken offender shall have the same judgment "as if he were in his right senses" must be understood as precluding a defendant from arguing that, because of his intoxication, he could not have possessed the mens rea required to commit the crime.
Concurrance:
Quote:
Comprehended as a measure redefining mens rea, §45-2-203 encounters no constitutional shoal. States enjoy wide latitude in defining the elements of criminal offenses, see, e.g., Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 232 (1987); Patterson, 432 U. S., at 201-202, particularly when determining "the extent to which moral culpability should be a prerequisite to conviction of a crime," Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 545 (1968) (Black, J., concurring)... Defining mens rea to eliminate the exculpatory value of voluntary intoxication does not offend a "fundamental principle of justice," given the lengthy common law tradition, and the adherence of a significant minority of the States to that position today...
Other state courts have upheld statutes similar to §45-2-203, not simply as evidentiary rules, but as legislative redefinitions of the mental state element. See State v. Souza, 72 Haw. 246, 249, 813 P. 2d 1384, 1386 (1991) ("legislature was entitled to redefine the mens rea element of crimes and to exclude evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate state of mind"); State v. Ramos, 133 Ariz. 4, 6, 648 P. 2d 119, 121 (1982) ("Perhaps the state of mind which needs to be proven here is a watered down mens rea; however, this is the prerogative of the legislature."); Commonwealth v. Rumsey, 309 Pa. Super. 137, 139, 454 A. 2d 1121, 1122 (1983) (quoting Powell, 392 U. S., at 536 (plurality opinion)) ("Redefinition of the kind and quality of mental activity that constitutes the mens rea element of crimes is a permissible part of the legislature's role in the `constantly shifting adjustment between the evolving aims of the criminal law and changing religious, moral, philosophical, and medical views of the nature of man.' "). Legislation of this order, if constitutional in Arizona, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania, ought not be declared unconstitutional by this Court when enacted in Montana.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: I Need Help, Is This Possible!?!?! [Re: Stonehenge]
#10518480 - 06/16/09 05:21 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Stonehenge said: axl, what i said was correct. Do a little more digging.
It is not axl's burden to find support for your claims. Given that you are incorrect, Axl would be digging for quite a while. How bout you give us the citations you rely upon for your claims, rather than telling other people to dig up your argument for you?
Quote:
Intent includes knowingly doing something. If someone puts drugs in your yard, you are in possession of those drugs. Simple possession is not enough for a conviction, you must have put them there or known about it and allowed it.
How do you explain this then?
Quote:
The mere fact that a state police statute punishes an offense actually committed without regard to intent does not render the statute unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
??
Cite the authority that backs up your claim.
|
|