I really hope those attending the Boston Marathon make it through this.

[Febs]

Maybe. In your examples, at least the first one, I would say the difference is action, not intent. In your first example one is simply trespassing and the other is burglary. The crime is labeled based on the activity taking place, not the thoughts of the person doing them.

No. The act in both instances is *exactly * the same-- entering your house without permission. The only difference is the intent. The act in question is the entering of the house, not the taking of the TV. That is a separate act, and a separate crime (larceny).

 

[bassinplace]

No. The act in both instances is *exactly * the same-- entering your house without permission. The only difference is the intent. The act in question is the entering of the house, not the taking of the TV. That is a separate act, and a separate crime (larceny).

Right, so the person looking for his glasses or getting lost in the house is trespassing. The one stealing things is a burglar. It's what they did once inside the house that makes a difference.

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Right, so the person looking for his glasses or getting lost in the house is trespassing. The one stealing things is a burglar. It's what they did once inside the house that makes a difference.

'breaking and entering' in most states.

 

[bassinplace]

'breaking and entering' in most states.

Well, if you just walked into the wrong house you wouldn't be breaking and entering, just entering. If you forgot your glasses, the same. Although, if your glasses were in there, wouldn't that mean you were already welcome in the house? In that case, there'd be nothing going wrong in that scenario at all.

 

[Febs]

Right, so the person looking for his glasses or getting lost in the house is trespassing. The one stealing things is a burglar. It's what they did once inside the house that makes a difference.

No. It is the intent upon entering that makes the diffence. What they do inside may constitute separate crimes, but the burglary is the unauthorized entry itself, and the intent is a requisite element of the crime. If I enter your house with the intention of stealing your TV, discover that you don't have a TV and leave, I have still committed burglary. If you do have a TV, and I take it with me, I have committed two separate crimes -- burglary (the unauthorized entry with intent to take your TV) and larceny (the actual taking of your TV).

The broader point, of course, is that intent is an element of the crime of burglary. There are many crimes that are defined and delimited by the actor's intent.

 

[michael_atw]

Huh?
They were looking in the wrong place. The mayor lifted the lockdown. Henneberry walked out and found him in his boat. Where's the conspiracy?

You missed my point. My point was there was no conspiracy. Even more, my point was that the frothing excessive rants (not pointing out anything here but what I've seen on other social media) about intended "freedom-grabbing" is proven false by that fact alone. If the gov't was into breaking Boston'ers freedoms, they would have kept the lockdown through the capture and on into the ensuing days. They would have used their reach as much as they could. The fact that they dropped it before he was captured reveals the government ain't as evil (at least, this time) as people want to make it seem.

 

[michael_atw]

This thread is increasingly difficult to follow but...I think....michael atw is saying the same thing as you are when he says this

Correct.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

You missed my point. My point was there was no conspiracy. Even more, my point was that the frothing excessive rants (not pointing out anything here but what I've seen on other social media) about intended "freedom-grabbing" is proven false by that fact alone. If the gov't was into breaking Boston'ers freedoms, they would have kept the lockdown through the capture and on into the ensuing days. They would have used their reach as much as they could. The fact that they dropped it before he was captured reveals the government ain't as evil (at least, this time) as people want to make it seem.

Er, no?

 

[bassinplace]

No. It is the intent upon entering that makes the diffence. What they do inside may constitute separate crimes, but the burglary is the unauthorized entry itself, and the intent is a requisite element of the crime. If I enter your house with the intention of stealing your TV, discover that you don't have a TV and leave, I have still committed burglary. If you do have a TV, and I take it with me, I have committed two separate crimes -- burglary (the unauthorized entry with intent to take your TV) and larceny (the actual taking of your TV).

The broader point, of course, is that intent is an element of the crime of burglary. There are many crimes that are defined and delimited by the actor's intent.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be and I don't know if you are or not, but this still doesn't sound right to me. So, based on what you're saying, the person walking into a house by making an honest mistake is a burglar? Seems to me there needs to be some sort of forcible act to make it so.

 

[Febs]

I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be and I don't know if you are or not, but this still doesn't sound right to me. So, based on what you're saying, the person walking into a house by making an honest mistake is a burglar?

No, of course not. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in my hypothetical. One of the elements of burglary is the intent to commit a crime in the building or dwelling. So, in my example, the person who entered the house by mistake did not commit burglary. The person who entered with the intent to take a TV did commit burglary.

Once again, the point is that a person's intent is indeed often relevant to determining whether that person's acts are criminal or not.

 

[David Jayne]

Correct.

For once we agree.

 

[aborgman]

Because incriminating a person based on thier thoughts or beliefs is an infringment on a person's so-called "god given rights", the stated rights that the American constitution is founded upon, don't you think so?

No.

We use intent, of various sorts, to vary punishment in law - and it dates back to very early common law.

If we can ascertain those thoughts/beliefs, and they aren't in some way protected thoughts/beliefs - I have no factor in them affecting punishment.

As long as the intent is used as a factor in sentencing, as opposed to the intent minus the physical act being criminalized, I'm cool with it.

 

[bassinplace]

No, of course not. In fact, I said exactly the opposite in my hypothetical. One of the elements of burglary is the intent to commit a crime in the building or dwelling. So, in my example, the person who entered the house by mistake did not commit burglary. The person who entered with the intent to take a TV did commit burglary.

Once again, the point is that a person's intent is indeed often relevant to determining whether that person's acts are criminal or not.

Fair enough. But this doesn't address my original point about prosecution based on a persons thoughts or beliefs in the context of the discussion. Is it illegal to dislike or disagree with America or it's government? Is it illegal to express or demonstrate such dislike? Or is it only illegal to do so in a violent or destructive manner? We both know the answer to that. That was my original point regarding "thought crimes". The right to dissent is and should be protected by the constitution, not prohibited.

 

[tastybasslines]

So plotting to kill someone (thoughts) with evidence supporting those thoughts is not a crime because no physical act was committed?

 

[bassinplace]

So plotting to kill someone (thoughts) with evidence supporting those thoughts is not a crime because no physical act was committed?

How can you prosecute someone for an act they haven't committed? I can wish death on someone all day long. Doesn't make it illegal.

 

[Febs]

So plotting to kill someone (thoughts) with evidence supporting those thoughts is not a crime because no physical act was committed?

Thinking about killing someone is not a crime. However, there is a category of crime known as an inchoate offense, which involves taking steps towards the commission of another crime even though that other crime is not committed. Conspiracy, which is an agreement to commit a crime, is the most common example of an inchoate offense. Attempt is another category of inchoate offense. So, for example, thinking about killing someone is not a crime, but hiring a hit man to kill that person can be a crime, even if the hit doesn't actually occur.

Edit: to use an example directly relevant to the thread, let's say the police had discovered the Tsarnaev brothers' plans and arrested them before they had a chance to carry out the plan. They could still be charged with conspiracy.

 

[tastybasslines]

How can you prosecute someone for an act they haven't committed? I can wish death on someone all day long. Doesn't make it illegal.

Lets be clear - if there is any evidence that shows those thoughts may have been carried out - writings, telling someone, purchases and similar even without the actual act being committed, then yes, that is illegal. It's called conspiracy.

The thought alone is not enough.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Lets be clear - if there is any evidence that shows those thoughts may have been carried out - writings, telling someone, purchases and similar even without the actual act being committed, then yes, that is illegal. It's called conspiracy.

The thought alone is not enough.

There was some post apparently made on 4chan from some person who said they were going to shoot up their school. The police got wind of it and arrested the guy. IMHO, they did the right thing in those circumstances. I guess where I see potential issue is if someone is starting a political rally against some sort of legislation, or perhaps even our own government, and the government goes and arrests the guy because they see him as a threat to the currently established government. Doesn't matter if the person was only planning a peaceful display of our rights because it might put the US government at risk. Would this necessarily happen? I dunno, but I'd like to think the people have ultimate control of this country, including its government. Unfortunately, I think many state leaders see it the other way around. I could potentially see it happening, especially given some of the recently passed legislation.

 

[nukes_da_bass]

There is a recent incident of "thought crime" which is currently being prosecuted.
A group of men had an online BBS dedicated to planning crimes of
Cannibalism.
If i recall, the man arrested is some kind of cop.
He had made elaborate plans to cook his wife alive and serve her to the group. He provided her full name on the BBS.
The group also had online plans to hunt and cook other people.
To my knowledge this is a fairly jnique case- truly blows the mind how twisted humans can become .

 

[DwaynieAD]

If the gov't was into breaking Boston'ers freedoms, they would have

stripped them of their second amendment righ.... oh wait...