this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2024
-37 points (22.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43898 readers
1214 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In my opinion, yes. "breaking the law" is a statement of fact that is based on what is actually quantifiable.
The fact that I was traveling over the speed limit is the only relevant factor. My intentions and consequences are irrelevant.
Intent may not be relevant for your example, but a lot of US law does have different crimes and levels of criminality that depend on intent.
For example, if I kill someone on accident, that's usually categorized as manslaughter. If I kill someone on purpose, that might be murder. Depending on how much premeditation went into, it might be murder in the first degree, which comes with the most severe punishments.
yeah, so the "level of crime" is debatable, but if I kill someone it would not be wrong to say "I broke the law" right?
Maybe it was justifiable, but it is up to a jury to determine guilt.
Really the essence of my question is: "are 'guilt' and 'breaking the law' seen as different things."
conversely, if a murderer got acquitted, but then indisputable proof that the were the murder came out afterwards, you would say, "he broke the law".
It depends on the law really. There is no one rule.
For example, owning lockpicks is in many places not illegal, but owning lockpicks with the intent of bypassing a lock is.
Some laws are very specific about the severity or testability of a crime where as others are not. In that case a judge has to interpret the criteria for legal tests, either from previous case law or by building new case law.
In any case, being charged for something or not is a completely separate issue. Things are no less illegal just because the state has no resource or will to execute the law.
Also, being charged does not mean you broke the law either. Nor does judgment determine it (although it's a very strong hint) since a latter appeal could acquit you of chargers.
The determination of guilt is in the facts of what happened. And that's the whole point of the legal system. Being charged, getting judgement, appealing. It's all a process to determine guilt or not. It is not itself the mechanism of guilt.
The idea of a "guilty conscience" enshrines this idea in expression.