I don’t mean breaking a law that you didn’t know about, the old “Ignorance is no excuse” thing. I know manslaughter is kinda murder when you didn’t mean to kill. But say you picked up an item in a store, after wandering around a bit, and possibly zoning out, you walk out of the store and forget you had the item in your hand. Did you just shoplift? My grandma did something like that with a pillow once, but didn’t get caught. Perhaps it would be difficult to prove you didn’t mean to take the item, but suppose you could prove it was an accident, are you still guilty and subject to punishment?
This is exactly what the “ignorance is no excuse” quote is all about. The law exists whether you know about it or not. Otherwise crooks would work very hard at not knowing the laws dealing with their crimes.
But that being said, sometimes police, DAs and even judges, will cut the ignorant a little slack, especially if the crime were small or unintended. But yes you are still guilty and subject to punishment.
TV
Ignorance of the law applies to the fact that you didn’t know what the law was. This is not the case.
Stealing implies intent. Since your grandma was not guilty of stealing because she did not intend to steal. Proving that she did not have the intent is a different matter. If she’s caught with the goods in her hands, most people would assume that she had intent.
OK, if you can show that she did not have intent, then she is not guilty of stealing. She may, however, be guilty of another, lesser crime.
I don’t disagree with TV Time, but I think the element of “willful intent” also enters into it…
Littering is illegal, for example. If I deliberately toss my Fast Food wrappers on the side-walk - WRONG!
If I’ve tucked by Fast Food wrapper in my back pocket for proper disposal in the next dustbin, but it happens to fall out of my pocket whilst helping up a little old lady who just fell down in the Pelican Crossing trying to escape a rampaging articulated lorry, no crime. But the two events result in the same thing. Litter. One I am responsible for, one I am not.
As far as the OP is concerned I don’t think Granny is a felon, but I have to ask, did she go back and pay for it? But that is really none of my business.
BTW, IANAL.
Took too long to reply… What bizerta said!
She got out on the raod, realized what she had done, turned the car around and returned the pillow to the store, so everything worked out OK.
Now my story…
I shop at a major chain grocery that affixes those detector thingys to some items. At the check-out they scrape the item against some sort of anti-thingy anti-detector so it won’t set off the Thingy Detector at the front doors. This generally works well unless you are holding a pack of thingy attached cigarettes in your hand as you check-out. Not hiding it,mind you, just absent-minding holding it my hand (similar to a Granny pillow). So I check-out, proceed through the frong door, only to have the Thingy Detector let off a great fart! Only to have the store staff wave at me, saying “Oh! Sorry! Have a nice day!” Only to get to my car and have to empty my hands of the unpaid-for cigarettes to retrieve my car keys! Only to go back in and explain and pay for. Only to the delight and amusement (and perhaps manager’s chagrin) of the assembled staff.
The answer sorta depends… you mean word for word what the law says, or what the cops and courts will realistically nail you for? Sure, it’s easy to, ahem, “innocently” break the law. Ever drive through an area with construction, that’s mostly finished, parks, occupied houses with residents parked on the street, but with a couple houses not quite done? I could have got charged with that (tresspassing) a week ago, even though the roads are completely open, and there’s not one private property or no tresspassing sign to be seen, and I was just driving to the ice cream store. Of course it would have been ridiculous to do so and nothing happened. There are also several laws that are not so easy to define… maybe loitering, having you stereo on too loud, intimidating someone (some scare more easily than others)… and until the cop shows up and makes a choice, you can’t know if you’re breaking the law or whether you’re just chatting on the corner with old buddies, listening to the radio, or just giving someone a peice of your mind. If you’re genuinly nice and a good talker, you’d be amazed at what the authorities will let pass. One guy I knew put $5.00 gas into his car in the winter, forgot to pay for it, and had two RCMP officers pull him over down the road. The had their guns drawn, and were about to haul the guy out and cuff him. He explained in a very smart way, and they just said to drive back and pay the guy, not even following him back. Don’t count on getting away with innocent crimes though; you are liable and it’s up to the cops to give you a break.
So then the question becomes: which crimes require mens rea, and which have strict liability?
What did Grandma do when she realised she’d taken something without paying?
If she returned it or went back and paid for it, it was an accident.
If she kept it, she stole it.
I don’t know how the law stands, but that’s how I see it. Yes, I can easily believe that people zone out and walk out with things in their hands and forget to pay - but at some point you have to come to realise what you’ve done, and its how you react then that makes the difference between innocent mistake and criminal action.
Yes I think that is exactly how the law stands. If you become aware of the fact that you have someone else’s property and decide to keep it, even if you found it, you have formed the intent of depriving/defrauding the rightful owner.
I’ve known people who were prosecuted for littering when police saw trash blow out of the back of their pickup. If your trash ends up in the street and someone else didn’t put it there, it’s still littering.
Most crimes have two elements - Actus Reus and Mens Rea. The first is the actual act, for example to commit murder you have to actually kill someone (obviously!).
The Mens Rea is the intent to do so. Where it gets a little hazy (this is UK law i’m talking about - US law may be different) is that intent can sometimes also be formed by recklessness i.e. committing an act in such a way that, while you didn’t perhaps intend for the consequences to happen, those consequences are a likely outcome of your actions and you did them anyway. Not very clear but there you go.
Most traffic offences do not have any ‘intention’ element at all. If you speed, you are guilty. Weren’t aware that you were speeding? Tough!
I apologize for jumping in here, but what is this? I know a ‘lorry’ is a British term for truck (or is it ‘van’), but what is the ‘articulated’ part?
I think it is when one truck is pulling two carriages
Funny that this should come up now. I have a friend who just had a law (criminal) exam the other day. She knew one of the topics would be strict liability and so she had an answer prepared for it. This is a concept, at least in Australian law, that governs how intent or knowledge of the crime will affect the verdict. The more serious offences like murder require that the defendant had intent. However, some offences have this strict liability aspect where it doesn’t matter. My friend told me that environmental damage by corporations can be one example. It doesn’t matter that the company didn’t know their filters were faulty; it was their duty to ensure they weren’t. So guilty as charged.
PS articulated means something can bend or pivot along its length. Therefore, we’d call it a semi-trailer outside of the UK. As opposed to a rigid like a removalist’s truck. If it pulls two trailers then in Australia, we might call it a B double semi
[sub]Viel Glück Sim[/sub]t
Articulated lorries are ones with a separate tractor and trailer. A lot of lorries in Britain are all-in-one vehicles.
I’m a little confused as to how Granny didn’t realize she had the pillow until she was driving away…
What prescient question.
NEWS FLASH
Man boards Southwest Airlines plane with a handgun he had forgotten. Whereupon he surrenders it to the flight attendant. FBI calls it an “innocent mistake” and no charges will be files. No intent, no charges.
I don’t know why but that makes me feel good. That in a time of anxiety like this something can be handled rationally and calmly as this apparantly has been.