Originally posted by thewriteranon
View Post
fwiw, if there is no intent in a statute, courts have 3 options:
1. Strict liability, no intent required - typical for regulatory crimes (like gun regulation, that sort of thing)
2. Read intent into the statute - for the Model Penal Code, this means subjective recklessness, which is a much, much lower level of intent than what Comey was apparently reading (he read a purpose+ intent, which is an uber-high, uber-rare level of intent*); the Model Penal Code isn't law, but most states adopt it to some degree.
3. Read no intent and strike it down as unconstitutional
*See Cheek v. United States - Cheek was let off on tax evasion because the court decided to use this almost unknown level of intent; their reasoning was basically that they wanted to avoid severely penalizing people who make honest mistakes in filing their taxes, because tax law is hopelessly complicated
1. Strict liability, no intent required - typical for regulatory crimes (like gun regulation, that sort of thing)
2. Read intent into the statute - for the Model Penal Code, this means subjective recklessness, which is a much, much lower level of intent than what Comey was apparently reading (he read a purpose+ intent, which is an uber-high, uber-rare level of intent*); the Model Penal Code isn't law, but most states adopt it to some degree.
3. Read no intent and strike it down as unconstitutional
*See Cheek v. United States - Cheek was let off on tax evasion because the court decided to use this almost unknown level of intent; their reasoning was basically that they wanted to avoid severely penalizing people who make honest mistakes in filing their taxes, because tax law is hopelessly complicated
Comment