• Warl0k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    3 months ago

    Its been a defence for several hundred years, in fact! Showing intent is one of the three things you need to establish in every criminal case for it to be considered valid. Fuck the cops for dropping this case though, how in hell was there no intent to commit a crime here wtf.

    • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      3 months ago

      Weird, I’ve literally always heard “ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law”, which seems to imply criminal intent doesn’t matter. Only that the action that was take was illegal.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        There are strict liability crimes. Like if you admit to shooting someone but maintain it was an accident. You won’t get a murder charge, (or murder 1 depending on state) but you are going to get time in prison.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not intent to break the law, it’s intent to do what you did. If I walk out of a store with a can of tuna I didn’t pay for, that’s shoplifting, right? Well, not necessarily.

        If I walk into a store, pick it up off the shelf, hide it in my jacket, and dart for the exit, probably.

        If my toddler slipped it into my jacket pocket, and I didn’t notice, probably not.

        If I put it in my jacket pocket because my toddler started to run away, I forgot about it, and paid for a cart of groceries… Maybe? But unlikely to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t an accident.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s not intent to break the law, it’s intent to do what you did. If I walk out of a store with a can of tuna I didn’t pay for, that’s shoplifting, right? Well, not necessarily.

          But they did mean to take pictures of minors in the privacy of their bedrooms in the name of stopping petty theft which I’m doubtful would have occurred on any meaningful scale in the first place. Whether they meant it “criminally” seems immaterial here. I think they got off exceptionally light, and it’s a travesty of justice. You won’t convince me otherwise.

          • spongebue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            If I won’t convince you otherwise there’s not much point in discussing anything. I’ll throw out one point I mentioned in another comment nonetheless…

            From what I remember of this school district’s case, the laptops were assigned the laptops for free to use at school. If they wanted to take the laptops home, they needed to pay an additional fee for extra insurance costs. This student did not. There is a reasonable argument that the school was tracking down its missing property. Maybe you won’t be convinced otherwise, but a jury (really, a single jury member) very well could.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Well…you see…here’s the thing…

        Fuck you!

        ~Sincerely, the rich and elite, which control the legal system which is not meant to ever be in YOUR favor. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The thing is, those people working IT at this school aren’t members of the rich elite or else they wouldn’t be working there. The parents of the children spied on are members of the rich elite, so it’s strange that their concerns got tossed in the dumpster here.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 months ago

      Intent to perform an action.

      If they legitimately didn’t know there was spying software on the computers and it was discovered later then they didn’t intend to do it. But they did intend to spy on the students, and it doesn’t matter if they thought it was legal.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      “Strict liability” crimes are the exception to that rule. A lot of relatively minor crimes, like code violations or letting minors into a bar, are in that category.

    • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not every criminal case. There’s strict liability crimes, the most well-known being statutory rape.