[bort]

Involuntary manslaughter is a crime and does not require intent
—————————————————————-
Incorrect. There is no such thing as an unintentional crime. Every crime requires a mens rea, which is Latin for “guilty mind.” While an intent to kill is not required for manslaughter, the intent to commit the underlying crime, such as assault, is required. The prosecutor would have to prove that Baldwin intended to commit an assault, and that assault resulted in an unintentional killing. A second way to prove involuntary manslaughter is for the prosecutor to prove that the defendant acted with criminal negligence, which is substantially different than negligence. Criminal negligence requires a showing that Baldwin intentionally acted with reckless disregard for human life. That did not happen in this case.

[unlearner]

“Incorrect. There is no such thing as an unintentional crime. Every crime requires a mens rea, which is Latin for ‘guilty mind.’”

No. You’re incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal)

“In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Law Latin for ‘guilty mind’) does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (’guilty act’).”

Further, mens rea has been clarified in many cases of modern jurisprudence with the Model Penal Code. Culpability does not necessitate intent (or “purpose”).

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/recklessness-and-model-penal-code

“The four mental states or types of culpability upon which criminal responsibility is based include purpose, knowledge, negligence, and recklessness.”

Under the Model Penal Code, which is a set of guidelines used by many states in the US, a person can be held legally accountable for crimes committed unintentionally if they acted recklessly or negligently. The Model Penal Code defines recklessness as a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a particular result will occur. Negligence is defined as a failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a particular result will occur.

As an example, drunk driving is a crime that is often prosecuted as a form of negligence or recklessness, depending on the circumstances of the case. In general, if a person decides to drink alcohol and then chooses to get behind the wheel of a car, they are acting recklessly and could be held legally accountable for any harm they cause as a result of their actions. In the case of drunk driving, a person who chooses to drink alcohol and then drive is consciously disregarding the risk that they may cause an accident and harm themselves or others.

There may very well be NO INTENT to harm anyone, but if you drink and drive you risk incarceration and can be charged with multiple crimes, depending on the specific situation.

Now, if you will return to my statement which you contradicted: “Involuntary manslaughter is a crime and does not require intent”, you will find that I thoroughly demonstrated that you are wrong. You stated: “There is no such thing as an unintentional crime.” and I have proven this to be false. If it is not plain to you now, I can’t help you. When you continue to argue from a point of ignorance, you dig yourself deeper into a hole.