|View single post by Joe Kelley|
|Posted: Wed Oct 16th, 2013 07:08 pm||
|The concept of "just following orders" is compared to "willful intent" in cases where there are victims of criminals.
The terms that may apply are:
In ethical terms, intention is widely felt to be the strongest basis for the attribution of personal responsibility for conduct and outcomes. By contrast, in tort law intention is a much less important ground of liability than negligence. This article analyses the meaning of intention in tort law and its relationship to other concepts such as voluntariness, recklessness, motive, and belief. It also discusses difficulties associated with proving intention and other mental states, and the idea of a general principle of tort liability for intention. The key to explaining the relatively minor role of mens rea in tort law is found to lie in the emphasis tort law gives to the interests of victims, and to social values, in constructing its concept of responsibility. This approach also helps to explain the greater importance of mens rea in criminal law.
Criminal intent. The state of mind indicating culpability which is required by statute as an element of a crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). However, for strict liability crimes, state of mind as to at least one element of the crime is irrelevant.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary(menz-ray-ah) The mental component of criminal liability. To be guilty of most crimes, a defendant must have committed the criminal act in a certain mental state (the mens rea). The mens rea of robbery, for example, is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property. Compare: actus reus Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
August 19, 2010, 5:19 pm
To condense the concept a few words may suffice.
No person can be guilty of willfully perpetrating a criminal act when the individual is unaware of the nature of crime.
This is contrary to the concept of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" since there can be no established willful intent to commit a crime if the will of the individual has no concept of crime.
The idea here is to point out the function of the Oath.
An Oath intends to establish a record of the measure of an individual concerning the individuals understanding of the nature of crime, so as to have that fact established in cases where the Oath taker does not abide by the Oath that the Oath taker takes voluntarily.
Imagine a Oath taker taking an Oath and then qualifying the Oath with the words Under Duress.
That is like crossing your fingers behind your back when you promise your friends that you won't tell on them?
To further clarify the importance of establishing foreknowledge, or to establish a "guilty mind" it can be understood that some people are born with parts of their brains missing, and these types of abnormal people can be called such things as narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths, nihilists, and criminally insane.
If the individual is operating under an operating system which is an insane mind, then the concept of crime as being something bad, wrong, immoral, or criminal is foreign to that individual, and their concept of torture could be, to them, akin to a normal person petting a dog. Therefore it is absurd to suggest that such a person has a guilty mind, it is not even possible.
So someone on the Monday meetup mentioned the process of qualifying someone to be in a position to take an Oath. Failing to accurately identify a narcissist who is getting ready to take an oath is worst than useless, worse than expecting a rabid dog to abide by an Oath, since the unqualified narcissist will then be LICENSED by that Oath to a position of false authority due to the fact that no one, or no process, properly measured the individual for qualifications to take an Oath, let alone follow one.
The other thing about Oaths concerns the verifications of authority in any case of dispute, as the saying goes "take me to your leader" and if there is no Oath then the buck stops at that individual who is acting upon their own authority and another saying comes to mind "opinions are just like assholes, everyone has one," so no Oath means no authority above the individual claim of authority by the individual claiming authority.
The Oath says, in point of fact, I am not the source of authority, because no man (alone) is the source of authority, man made authority is made through consent, which may be difficult, especially when dealing with narcissists who lie as if singing a happy song.