LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Discuss the difference between Common Law and the Statutory Acts made by the Powers that be, (PTB)

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby strawmansarah » Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:12 pm

pedawson wrote:And to think it is this type of person we are promoting to protect our society.
WHO are they protecting? It certainly is not us.


She's in FAMILY LAW. 'Nuff said :ouch:
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
strawmansarah
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby musashi » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:50 pm

DOLI CAPAX - the age of child criminal responsibilty - is ten years old in this country.

I recall IGNORANTIA LEGIS NON EXCUSAT. I have never seen or heard IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT.
I also recall being told, or reading, that LEGIS is from LEGERE - rules. Hence legislation.
Some philologists believe that the root of the word RELIGION is the word LEGERE. It suits.
Some think it is from LIGERE - to bind. Even more suitable, methinks.

Another question might be "When did Roman law enter the English courts?"


Musashi
ISLAM DELENDA EST
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby strawmansarah » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:28 pm

musashi wrote: "When did Roman law enter the English courts?"


About the same time legislation did! ? :giggle: :ouch:
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
strawmansarah
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby diasan » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:39 pm

musashi wrote:DOLI CAPAX - the age of child criminal responsibilty - is ten years old in this country.


I recall once I reached 10, my father telling me that I could be sent to prison for crimes...

However, I recently read an edition of a book with the reprint being from the early 60s. Something like 'The principals of English Law'.

It stated that up to age 7, a child is viewed as incapable of crime, as they are deemed not to be able to understand that they did a wrong.
It also stated that from 7 until 14, there is a rebuttable presumption of the inability to understand the wrong; hence still (by default) incapable of crime.

I also have vague recall of recent (10-20 years?) child crime cases where the children were over 10, and it had to be established that the understood the wrong.

Which makes one ask where the age of 10 comes from, and if there is still any significance to attaining the age of 14?
diasan
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby diasan » Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:47 pm

strawmansarah wrote:It occurs to me that may be why there is lenience in the 'first offence' situation. They can't PROVE Mens Rea.


But isn't the first offence rule only for the first time, not the first time with the same act?

i.e. that common assault followed by theft would not result in any leniency w.r.t. the theft?
diasan
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby strawmansarah » Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:51 am

Assault and any common law CRIME is not an 'offence' it is a CRIME.

Mens Rea on its own is not required in a common law crime. If you cause harm it doesn't matter whether or not you meant to... :ugeek:
[url]http://www.lulu.com/shop/the-lioness/so-they-say-you’ve-broken-the-law-challenging-legal-authority/paperback/product-18485231.html[/url]How to challenge the authority of anyone who claims you have broken the law.
strawmansarah
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby diasan » Sun Sep 02, 2012 9:19 pm

strawmansarah wrote:Assault and any common law CRIME is not an 'offence' it is a CRIME.

True. I picked a poor example.

But getting back to the point of 'first offence'.

Now, I've not researched it; but I always had the impression that is was always about the first time committing any offence, not the first time with each specific offence (or general class of offence).

So you you have any reference to support the latter interpretation, or are you drawing inferences?

e.g. how about 'taking without consent' (cars - joyriding - with car recovered undamaged) followed by 'allowing a dog to foul the pavement'.
diasan
Newbie
Newbie
 

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby musashi » Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:28 am

diasan wrote:
strawmansarah wrote:It occurs to me that may be why there is lenience in the 'first offence' situation. They can't PROVE Mens Rea.


I think this impossible, my little surgical friend. If mens rea cannot be proven then no crime has been committed therefore there would be no case for leniency as there was no sentence.

In the case of manslaughter where death was caused without the presence of mens rea,, lesser charges have been preferred and, often, result from what was not done. Negligence for example.

In the absence of mens rea no crime has been committed, although there are 'crimes' of strict liability to consider.

I doubt you will find mens rea in any text book or case history as a defined article - like what constitutes a fraud, or a breach of the peace. Mens rea is a principle - the intention component of the crime - and need only be shown to have been present, or absent. You will find, I think, no discussions about it per se, but plenty of argument about whether or not it was present - such as cases where the plea is one of "not guilty due to diminished responsibility."

Musashi
ISLAM DELENDA EST
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1114
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby nameless » Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:46 pm

Just like that appalling shill Mr Justice Foskett, who ruled on Monday that forced labour is not slavery...

It is my understanding that forced labour is not slavery, so I am in agreement with the judge. All the people in the box are slaves by choice. They don't realise it but that is the case. Slavery is voluntary servitude. Forced labour is involuntary servitude, not slavery.
“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy."

Lord Denning
nameless
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: LEGAL ARGUMENT(ish) with a Barrister about MENS REA

Postby Dreadlock » Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:30 am

Slavery and forced labour are more or less synonymous.

http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/forced_labour.aspx
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=430
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slave
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

However after thinking about it I agree with Foskett that it is not slavery, simply because the people concerned are voluntarily using title and are therefore liable for everything that goes with it.
The fact that no-one in government has explained to them the consequences of using title and the fact that people are led to believe from childhood that they are "Mr" this and "Miss" that
does mean that a great deal of deception is at play. It isn't slavery, but it is despicable nonetheless.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

PreviousNext

Return to Common Law & Statute "Law"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron