If a person charged with a crime claims they did not commit the crime with their knowledge or with any intention would this person most likely be found innocent of the crime? There is also no hard evidence or reason as to why this person committed the crime only the assumption that they did.
2007-07-04 14:56:44 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
there are specific intent crimes like solicitation or conspiracy and attempt, and about 7 others. for those crimes, the prosecution has to prove that the person had the requisite intent to commit the crime. there are other crimes, like rape and manslaughter that are general intent crimes, which just means the person has to just have to be aware of the factors that constitute committing the crime. and then there is strict liability, which requires no intent, like possession dangerous or wild animals or doing an abnormally dangerous activity.
so it depends on what he is charged with.
mistake of fact is a defense to specific intent crimes and a reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to general intent crimes. mistake of law is never a defense.
basically, all this means is that the prosecution has to put on evidence to prove that the defendant had the intent required for the crime.
2007-07-04 15:38:01 · answer #1 · answered by tortfeasor21913 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm no lawyer by any means but being accused without evidence is not enough. You have to prove that a person commited a crime. You just can't assume the person did it. Doing so can lead you to a lot of problem. If you wrongfully accuse somebody of being a criminal that person can sue you for dirtying their good name. Maybe is called slander. My memory does not serve me well today.
To answer your first question, lack of knowledge of the law does not saves you from punishment. What could happen is that if a cop catches you braking the law and you did not know about it he/she can let you off easy. That is educate you and let you go without punishment. It is really to the officers discretion though. He/she can just as easily fine you or take you to jail dpeneding on the crime. This makes sense because #1 most laws are common sense things anyways. Ok, not all but the main ones. #2 How do you prove lack of knowledge? That would be everybodys excuse.
2007-07-04 15:05:10 · answer #2 · answered by mr_gees100_peas 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If your friend is charged with a crime that requires that the state prove "intent", state law will tell you what the state needs to prove to show intent. For instance, for 1st degree murder, the state must show it was pre-meditated, that is, that you thought about it for a while, made a decision to commit the murder and then planned for it. Most people on trial don't admit they intended to murder someone so the state can prove it - if the jury is convinced by the evidence - by showing that the person acted liked someone who was planning a murder - for instance, stalking someone to find out their car, their home address, their schedule to find out when they are alone, then buying a gun, a mask and glove to commit the crime, having stuff w/ you to dispose of the body, etc. If the jury thinks the fellow did the crime but not w/ the amount of proof needed to show this particular crime, they can find your friend guilty of a lesser included offense, such as murder w/o pre-meditation or manslaugher and those carry lesser sentences. Hope that helps.
2007-07-04 15:30:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ignorance of the law is not excuse.
If you thought the speed limit was 35 and you went 34, but it was actually a school zone and the speed limit was really 20. Despite the fact that a speed limit of 35 is almost the universal default, despite the fact that you were trying your best, you still broke the law and would get a ticket.
Intention determines the severity of a crime, not if it is a crime or not.
In the case above a police officer who was following you and clocked your speed with his speedometer has no proof that you speed, except for his word and that is enough to enforce the ticket.
You have to know the law and you can't get around that, not matter what your intent.
2007-07-04 15:42:36 · answer #4 · answered by Dan S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Proven lack of intent may reduce the charge. As in, I mean to beat him up but I didnt intend to kill him. Then its manslaughter and not murder.
2007-07-04 15:00:05 · answer #5 · answered by griffyn10941 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
dep on what they did...murder..no obviously they would get in trouble for it....but something dumb like...having a yard sale without a permit...maybe...every judge/cop that i know always say "ignorance of the law is no excuse" but i think what you are talking about is people that are found not responsible based on mental problems...that also dep on the situation
2007-07-04 15:00:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋