Replies

“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.

no. You’re incorrect.

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

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.”

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.

Second, unlike yourself, I have prosecuted and defended “involuntary manslaughter cases” and have taught criminal law.

Third, with the exception of non-jailable regulatory or minor traffic crimes, there are no 100% “strict liability” crimes. For example, the government does not have to prove that I knew I parked my car in a “no parking” zone.

Fourth—and most important—you are confusing the concept of “criminal intent” or “general intent” with “specific intent.” There is no such thing as a jailable criminal offense that lacks a “criminal intent.” By contrast, there are hundreds of crimes that do not require a “specific intent,” like involuntary manslaughter.

Some examples:
1) Person A gets tanked up at the bar, goes to what he thinks is his apartment, opens the door and walks in to shrieks of the women who live there. Burglary? No, because burglary requires a “specific intent” to commit a felony, e.g., rape, murder, etc. Breaking and entering (a crime with no specific intent requirement)? Probably not, because he did not have “criminal intent” in entereing the apartment. Burglary, like all crimes, has a “general” or “criminal” intent requirement, i.e., the intent to break and enter a dwelling. In addition, however, one can be a burglar only if he has, in addition to a general criminal intent, the “specific intent” to commit a felony inside the dwellling, e.g., rape, robbery, murder, etc.

2) Person A decides to drive his Porsche at 150 mph in a 55 mph zone and crashes into a car because of his excessive speed and kills the other driver. Murder or Voluntary Manslaughter? No, because Person A did not specifically intend to crash the car let alone kill anybody. Involuntary manslaughter? Yes. Although Person A had no “specific intent” to kill, he acted with “criminal intent” because he was “conscious of the risk” and intended “to act in a manner that created a high degree of risk of human life.” By contrast, if the driver had been carjacked at gunpoint and was ordered by the carjacker to drive 150 mph, he likely did not possess a general criminal intent to consciously disregard a known risk, etc.

Back to my point. Alex Baldwin did not act with “criminal intent” because: 1) he was not “conscious of the risk” and 2) he did not intend “to act in a manner that created a high degree of risk of human life.” Baldwin clearly did not know the gun had bullets in it, it was in fact a “prop” that was supposed to shoot blanks, and the production company or Baldwin hired a professional armorer to prevent the very type of freak accident that happened.

It is you, my friend, that is incorrect.

So, yes, “involuntary manslaughter” includes a general “criminal intent” requirement. Accordingly, you are wrong.