Law Enforcement Action?

This forum has been closed and archived. No further postings allowed. Read-only access. For more informations read this announcement.
Jason R
"Mr. DVD"
Posts: 1627
Joined: Jan 30th 2002, 1:42 pm
Location: New York

Post by Jason R » Mar 25th 2003, 12:21 pm

Also, I know this doesn't help with refunds, but FTC does not care about intent. They have some insane fines based solely on behavior.

And they've dished out some massive fines for a lot less than what Ross has done.

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Mar 25th 2003, 12:29 pm

It depends on the offence.

Something like speeding offences are what's called 'strict liability'. It doesn't matter whether you intend to speed or not. The mere action of speeding leaves so little room for infering intent that it would be incredibly difficult to prove that someone 'meant' to speed, apart from if they admitted it (unlikely). You can't really draft in an expert and get them to examine someone's state of mind on it; the only thing they'd have to go on are the speed readings. It's just not practical. so to stop people speeding, the law says it doesn't matter if you mean it or not, we'll punish you. Rather that than people be able to get away with it because the state failed to prove what would be almost impossible to prove (remember, burden on the prosecution). Plus it's a lowlevel crime, so long as you don't hurt anybody. If you injure someone, whole different level of culpability.

Murder is completely serious and requires a particular state of mind - without the intent, the offence doesn't exist. If you don't have the intent, it's not murder, but manslaughter (at least in the UK). Lesser penalty to reflect the fact that it's worse to kill someone and mean it than it is to kill someone and not mean it. I know, end result is the same... but without wanting to get into a philosophical discussion here you'll just have to believe me; the law places much weight on what people were thinking at the time. In something like murder, where there's a course of events it's easier to describe those actions and draw conclusions from them. Eg - he picked up the knife and thrust it into the victim. Forensic experts will be able (sometimes) to determine the force of the blow etc and combined with cross-examination to expose false hood and a realm of psychiatric experts, it's much more possible to examine what someone was probably thinking.

Am I making any sense?

:?

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
So-Called Loon
Angela's best friend
Posts: 234
Joined: Oct 4th 2002, 10:00 pm
Location: SLC, UT

Re: refund

Post by So-Called Loon » Apr 3rd 2003, 9:02 pm

I still can't imagine that intent would come into play concerning a lot Ross's shennanigans. Plus the number of things that have gone wrong will be a bit difficult for anybody to swallow as far as lack of intent.
Lance wrote:You got your refund? Did the check clear?

Best,

Lance Man
So far nothing from the bank about the check. The money seems to be in there. Image
Been a member since sometime BR (before Ross)

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Re: refund

Post by lance » Apr 4th 2003, 3:52 pm

So-Called Loon wrote:I still can't imagine that intent would come into play concerning a lot Ross's shennanigans. Plus the number of things that have gone wrong will be a bit difficult for anybody to swallow as far as lack of intent.
Lance wrote:You got your refund? Did the check clear?

Best,

Lance Man
So far nothing from the bank about the check. The money seems to be in there. Image
Very cool. Glad to hear some good news.

Best,

Lance Man

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests