Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.
The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime.
Actually, it's the pickled perpetrator that's at issue.
That's nice and all, but someone claims it relevant as a matter of law that both were pickled. Not merely relevant, but "the most important part of this".
That's nice and all, but someone claims it relevant as a matter of law that both were pickled. Not merely relevant, but "the most important part of this".
That part of my statement was about the law and the public and the fact that alcohol played a HUGE role in the events.
"And the most important part of this is that they were both pickled. As much as folks love to parrot each other when they claim "alcohol is no excuse", the law, and biology, tell a different story. But pitchforking is fun, so..."
But reasonable, adult discussion is off the table here. So be it.
06-06-2018, 07:41 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359
No person in their right mind desires the results in 1,2, and 3. Yet, if we fail to safeguard the notion of judicial independence these things will almost surely come to pass. Many states do not have judicial recall laws and for good reason. In states where such laws exist they must be used very, very carefully.
It is inappropriate to use such a recall law when a judge is simply doing what Judge Persky did--relying on a report given him by the Probation and Pre-sentence Unit. Sometimes, it is better to endure the harm of a judge not sentencing an offender to a long enough term in jail than to endure the harm that will come from removing that judge from office.
There is far more at stake here than a longer sentence for one offender. Those who don't realize that are not thinking deeply enough about this problem.
Exactly. We don't want our criminal justice system to be reduced to rule by uninformed mob. I've actually read the Commission on Judicial Performance's report on Persky, which shows him to be little more than a judge doing his job and mostly accepting plea agreements and probation report recommendations. I've also looked through the response from the pro-recall people and the arguments from the anti-recall crowd. I really don't feel like I know enough to make a really informed decision, and I guarantee I've read more about it than just about every person who cast a vote for or against his recall. Although I do think it's telling that the campaign for recall was only able to put together a fairly weak argument. If he's really so horrible, they should be able to come up with more than a handful of questionable cases over his career.
There are serious consequences to making judges compete in popularity contests, as seen in states like WV where a few rich people/companies simply purchase the supreme court they'd like.
I hope this remains a rare event (the last one was in 1932), otherwise our entire justice system is at risk.
Last edited by i7pXFLbhE3gq; 06-06-2018 at 07:50 PM..
That part of my statement was about the law and the public and the fact that alcohol played a HUGE role in the events.
"And the most important part of this is that they were both pickled. As much as folks love to parrot each other when they claim "alcohol is no excuse", the law, and biology, tell a different story. But pitchforking is fun, so..."
But reasonable, adult discussion is off the table here. So be it.
I have no idea what point, if any, is supposed to be in there. Doesn't matter.
My opinion is not a popular one, but I think this is a mistake. I also believe judges should not be subject to judicial recall.
There is something that is known as "judicial independence". The concept is that judges should be in a position where they should be able to make decisions based upon the facts and the law and should not be subjected to political winds and political correctness. People of all races, sexes, and nationalities will benefit the most when judges are able to do what is right than simply what is politically correct or expedient on a given day or time.
Judge Persky ended up in hot water for sentencing Brock Turner to six months in jail. What most people leave out of this narrative is that the judge was simply following the recommendation of the Probation and Pre-Sentence Unit of the court in which he worked. Judges routinely receive these recommendations in all criminal cases from the Pre-Sentence Unit. Ordinarily, judges follow this advice because those giving it are in the best position to recommend an appropriate sentence. Occasionally, judges will depart from these recommendations and give either a greater sentence or a lesser sentence. However, these cases are the minority. Sentencing is something which is within the purview or discretion of a judge. It is never easy. It is never simple.
I don't know of any way to insure that sentences are uniform for the same crime other than to have mandatory sentences of prison for every offense that is committed. Perhaps, we could have a computer doing sentencing. Such a system might result in a more theoretically equal sentence. However, I think the vast majority of people would object to criminal sentencing by a computer. As long as we have the system that we do, some inequities will take place. I believe it is better to tolerate these inequities and uphold the principle of judicial independence. The people of California disagreed. I think it is a shame.
I wholeheartedly agree.
I also dislike judicial elections. All judges should be appointed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
