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.
You (and others in this thread) are conflating "guilt" and "punishment." They aren't the same, and my line of posts is addressing the distinction. To say that he isn't "guilty" because the intent wasn't there is ridiculous.
Again, HE DID IT. There is no question of "guilt." And that is a separate issue from what punishment, if any should be handed down.
This is pretty easy stuff. I'm not sure why you aren't understanding it.
In order to convict a defendant of this crime, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant acted with criminal intent. In the context of charges stemming from the alleged use of counterfeit currency, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud.
You (and others in this thread) are conflating "guilt" and "punishment." They aren't the same, and my line of posts is addressing the distinction. To say that he isn't "guilty" because the intent wasn't there is ridiculous.
Again, HE DID IT. There is no question of "guilt." And that is a separate issue from what punishment, if any should be handed down.
This is pretty easy stuff. I'm not sure why you aren't understanding it.
1 : the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty A jury will determine the defendant's guilt or innocence. broadly : guilty conduct. 2a : the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously His guilt was written in his face.
**************************************************
Kid committed no breach of conduct. The kid or his parents or both are in fact victims of q crime when someone substituted a bogus bill for a real one.
If someone sells you a stolen item you have received stolen property but you are not guilty of any offense. In fact you are a victim of a crime.
The cop told you to deposit it as if it's a good $5, on the off chance the bank would notice it in the stack and remove it from circulation?
That sounds odd.
Very. But banks don't catch most counterfeit, either; most is found when the cash passes through the Federal Reserve. They have scanners that can detect the best fakes while scanning at extremely high speeds, especially now that bills are loaded with protection devices. (One that predates most of the fancy stuff was the border around the portrait on a $20, which was actually fine text instead of a line. The scanners could see it.)
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,633 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50660
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
I'm not missing anything.
You (and others in this thread) are conflating "guilt" and "punishment." They aren't the same, and my line of posts is addressing the distinction. To say that he isn't "guilty" because the intent wasn't there is ridiculous.
Again, HE DID IT. There is no question of "guilt." And that is a separate issue from what punishment, if any should be handed down.
This is pretty easy stuff. I'm not sure why you aren't understanding it.
Yes, you are missing something. I think it boils down to the definition of "guilt".
Guilty is defined as having committed a crime.
It is not a crime to unwittingly, and unknowingly pass a fraudulent $20. That's not a crime. A crime is to do it knowingly.
So, he's not guilty of anything.
The bill in question is a fake. That's all you can say. He's not guilty of a crime.
You're thinking that "guilty" means he did the action described. As in, "who bought this bread"? "Jason is guilty of that".
Do you see how odd that sounds? This boy, if he did not know the bill saw fake, is not "GUILTY" of anything although he did pass the $20 as described in the article.
You (and others in this thread) are conflating "guilt" and "punishment." They aren't the same, and my line of posts is addressing the distinction. To say that he isn't "guilty" because the intent wasn't there is ridiculous.
Again, HE DID IT. There is no question of "guilt." And that is a separate issue from what punishment, if any should be handed down.
This is pretty easy stuff. I'm not sure why you aren't understanding it.
No, there is a question. On one hand there's the clear meaning of the term and the concept, and then there's your tortured dissembling to pretend otherwise - apparently because for some inexplicable reason you want this 13-year-old punished.
I don't think it was a piece of Monopoly money or something so overtly obvious, or the Dad would have noticed it when he gave it to the kid to buy lunch with. Come on, be serious now.
I am being serious and I wasn't refering to Monopoly money. That is just being obtuse. What I meant and obviously went over your head was that texture might be off or the face might be off. There are A LOT of small details that if you look, maybe you'd see a bill is counterfeit. Obviously there was enough for the lunchlady knew it was off and the child got in trouble for something that someone should have realized at some point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by city living
You can apply this notion to a lot of things in life. And usually what happens is because they don't have evidence the person actually knew, they will drop it.
My coworker once received a counterfeit from an ATM. She didn't realize it and when she went to use it, they told her it was fake. Her only consequence was getting screwed out of $20.
I bet if a teacher in the school had accidentally done the same thing the person wouldn't have been suspended.
I understand that but the issue is the student used counterfeit currency and got caught. MOST times, most people don't realize tender maybe counterfeit. Most times with counterfeit, cashiers are told to slow the transaction and take mental details of the buyer. For school, lunch ladies typically know the students and most staff so they don't need to. It is far better he got a meaningless 10 day OCR/inschool suspension rather than learn this lesson years later when he MAY get arrested for it. Could it get dropped, sure but likely it would get them booked.
the school administration confiscated the fake $20 bill so now they are in possession of counterfeit money. i think the principal should serve his 10-day suspension sitting next to this kid.
Thank you! Excluding the suspended principal part; I’d bet you are right.
The school, admin or not; has no jurisdiction over this entire event. They don’t get to assign guilt here much less close the case.
The student is still under their jurisdiction but I would imagine an attorney would advise the district to suspend their actions pending a real secret service investigation.
Many counterfeit bills come from the efforts of multiple offenders & if you find one bill; there will be others. That fake $20 would be just one small piece of evidence in a larger “ring” bust. The article said the parents filed the police report but nothing was mentioned regarding where the bill is now.
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.
