July 20, 2013
Lots of notable support for work of federal Over-Criminalization Task Force
As detailed at this official website, yesterday the House of Representatives Over-Criminalization Task Force had its second hearing on the topic of "Mens Rea: The Need for a Meaningful Intent Requirement in Federal Criminal Law." This report from Main Justice discusses the discussion at the hearing.
Notable, there appears to be a lot of support from a lot of quarters for this Task Force's work, as these pieces reveal:
From Cato here, "Bipartisanship at Its Finest"
From the Cleveland Plain Dealer here, "Federal overcriminalization hurts Ohioans: Chad Readler"
From The Hill here, "Time to rethink harsh drug sentences"
July 20, 2013 at 06:41 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lots of notable support for work of federal Over-Criminalization Task Force:
This Task Force is just a lawyer prank. A couple of trivial changes will be made, but the Inquisition 2.0 business model will not be disrupted. The aim of over-criminalization is to plunder the assets of the productive for the enrichment of the new inquisitors, the lawyer profession and its wholly owned subsidiary, the government. That cannot be stopped until the persons are stopped. The lawyers hierarchy cannot be persuaded to surrender its total power over the government and its $trillion take home pay. They can only be arrested, tried, and executed for their treason. That is how the Inquisition 1.0 ended, after a run of 700 years. What other business model is so robust? None.
If you want fundamental change in cost, in freedom, in safety, require that each new stupid proposal be tested in a small jurisdiction, proven effective in its goals, and devoid of super toxic unexpected consequences. You want an idiotic sex registry that would never have helped the eponymous little girls that were taken from us, prove their effectiveness in protecting children. So vicious pedophile predators are protected by the pro-criminal lawyer profession, and kept alive and loose, and little girls may rot in garbage bags, buried alive. The lawyer profession is morally reprehensible for its forbearance of 20 million FBI Index felonies, mostly coming down on poor people and minority members.
Here is a law that would increase safety as a opposed to paper shuffling for make work government parasites. All citizens must carry a weapon. If they see a violent crime, they must draw it, and try to kill the criminal, or get a $100 ticket.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 21, 2013 11:50:44 AM
No lawyer dumbass will ever point out the self evident, that the mens rea is 1) in Latin, the language of a church, and unlawful in our secular nation with an Establishment Clause; 2) requires a supernatural power, mind reading, with many defendants drunk, and unable to remember the crime, themselves; 3) a loophole needed in 1275 AD, when the sole penalty was death for even the smallest crime; 4) irrelevant to public safety and the decision to incapacitate; 5) is an element needed for retribution, even though incapacitation is the sole mature goal of the criminal law.
A hunter shoots another wearing white gloves thinking him a deer. A hunter shoots another after the other's wife paid him $10,000, to collect on a $million insurance policy. Which is more dangerous?
Under the rule of the lawyer dumbass, one goes home and has his insurance compensate the estate. The other gets the needle. Same act, same outcome. The mental state decides between these two widely disparate sentences.
From a public safety view, the sole purpose of the criminal law, which is the more dangerous killer is not obvious. If the first is an alcoholic with a long record of hurting people by accident, he is more dangerous than the contract killer.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 21, 2013 1:50:00 PM
The mens rea analysis is copied word for word from the analysis of mortal sin in the Catechism, Section 1857. Only a lawyer dumbass could blindly continue to apply this gross violation of the Establishment Clause. How offended would people get if I had quoted from the Sharia? But even Jewish law students blithely accept this atavistic tripe in 1L. I urge all students who care about religious liberty to disrupt the class by banging their books on the desk until the profession stops speaking about this abomination.
It is ironic that the sole crime with strict liability is statutory rape, even with consent of the hussy. The VFL at work again.
"1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134
While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call "light": if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss."
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 21, 2013 2:21:52 PM