|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: A BIG Question... [Re: Seuss]
#7713956 - 12/04/07 03:50 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:So, if I plan to rob a bank by burning my way into the vault with a small pocket magnifying glass, but after playing with my magnifying glass, I realize that it isn't going to work, thus I give up, then I am still guilty of attempting to rob a bank? Woah! Gotta love thought crimes.
It's not exactly a "thought crime" once you actually attempt it, magnifying glass or not.
-FF
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: A BIG Question... [Re: fastfred]
#7713999 - 12/04/07 04:36 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> It's not exactly a "thought crime" once you actually attempt it, magnifying glass or not.
In my scenario, I never attempted it beyond thinking about it and testing my magnifying glass to see how hot it gets, yet I am still guilty of attempting to rob a bank (in Ohio). Pretty much the definition of a thought crime. Think about it, but don't actually do it, and you go to jail as if you had done it.
If you walk into your garage, drunk, to go for a drive, but you decide against it after noticing that you can't get your key into the car door (because you are too drunk), then you still have broken the law, in Ohio, as if you had driven while drunk. Again, a thought crime. You thought about doing something illegal, but you didn't actually do anything illegal, but you are still guilty of the crime you thought about doing.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: A BIG Question... [Re: Seuss]
#7715208 - 12/04/07 12:29 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
There is still a difference between a "thought crime" and an actual attempt. You can think all you want about that magnifying glass, you can even test it out, just not an actual bank vault with the intent of breaking into it.
Like the laws and case law state, there is no real difference in culpability between someone who commits a crime and someone who attempts to commit one. Just because you're too inept or stupid to pull off a crime doesn't make you any less guilty.
It's not a thought crime, it's a crime based on an actual action or attempt.
It's also almost impossible to prove the situations you're talking about as long as you keep your trap shut. You can easily say that you weren't going to drive and were just trying to unlock your car to find your wallet. Or that you were just examining the bank vault.
It's always hard to prove intent unless either you run your mouth or your actions make it very clear what your intent was. If your actions weren't clearly going to result in the commission of a crime then it's nearly impossible to prove criminal intent unless you admit to it.
The only part that makes it similar to a thought crime is that your intent is part of what they would have to prove, so thoughts would make you or break you. But that divorces itself from that fact that you are there in the first place because of an action, an attempt at committing a crime.
It all seems pretty reasonable to me. The root of being a criminal is acting on the desire to commit a crime. Just because you aren't a good criminal doesn't make you any less of a criminal.
-FF
|
|