I’d like to take a moment to say that I don’t believe those attacking Bricker on moral grounds have a leg to stand on. He has never indicated that he felt the Cardinal’s actions were moral or correct. His only contribution has been over the use of the word ‘crime’.
I do know he has a history of barging into threads and not taking into account the fact that people may be using terms of art colloquially or are using hyperbole. I also realize that he tends to make his first post as inflammatory as possible (in this case using a deliberately minimizing example of the colloquial use of 'it’s a crime"). The way to deal with this is to admit he is correct in the meaning of the term of art but that we are using the colloquial term and then flame on if he keeps at the legal speak or explain why it was an actual crime as Steve MB did and as Hamlet did such a good job defending.
**Bricker[/B is, IMHO, open to charges of hypocrisy due to his actions applying a Catholic moral standard to the functioning of the legal system and is open to the charge of misapplying the legal definition of intent but I doubt he is the immoral bastard people are implying and it weakens your arguments when you go there.
It’s to do with motive. I for one simply don’t believe Bricker is sincere. He has an endless history of cynical hand-waving for ‘his side’. We’ve seen it here with him again simply making stuff up and hoping not to be called on it (kudos to Hamlet here).
Just as he’s making it up about how child crimes were met with therapy not punishment so how could we expect the RCC not to play pass-the-paedo. Witness how he ignores the fact that they were not sent for therapy because of fear of being reported. Mahony identified a therapist who was also a lawyer so they could claim Privelege.
These facts are in plain sight. He ignores them because it reflects badly on his side.
He simply identified a pretext to deflect criticism from ‘his side’. Moral people don’t do things like that. Insincere, amoral people do.
A moral person would not misrepresent facts and issues. A defence lawyer would.
Normally, we’d say that intent can be inferred by actions. That is, we don’t have a magic mind reading machine attached to a time machine, so we don’t have any way of definitively determining someone’s actual intent. But in the law, we would usually say that a person is presumed to intend the ordinary results of his actions. This allows us to prosecute based on intent, and it allows the accused a chance to convince the finder of fact that he didn’t intend the ordinary course of his actions.
Here, we have a factual record that could absolutely support a finding of fact that he intended to hinder prosecution – no doubt about it.
But we also know – or should, I think — that he really didn’t. I guess the best proof I have is to ask yourself this question: “Do you believe that if Mahoney could have caused these molesting priests to be removed and punished without staining the coffers or reputation of the Church, would he?”
I am absolutely convinced that the answer to that question is “Yes.”
But I now realize that there’s a considerable portion of you reading this that don’t agree with that conclusion.
So if you don’t agree with that statement, then what I said to start this mess is factually wrong: Mahoney is in fact a criminal, safe because of the statute of limitations but certainly someone who committed a crime.
If, however, you do agree with that statement – * if Mahoney could have caused these molesting priests to be removed and punished without staining the coffers or reputation of the Church, he would have* – then Mahoney’s not a criminal. You might be able to convince a jury he was, anyway, because of the strong evidence that he intended assist the priests in dodging punishment for its own sake – but you’d be convicting him for something he did not technically do.
In any event, Mahoney’s conduct is not criminally prosecutable at this time, because of the statute of limitations. So no matter what you ultimately feel about Mahoney’s intent, I assume you agree that whatever he did is now beyond the reach of punishment by criminal law.
It is immoral to pretend a tubal pregnancy is a human being and force women to undergo unnecessary surgery as a result of such stupid beliefs. A young woman died in Ireland largely because of that bullshit view.
The pedophile shit is vile and disgusting but at least it isn’t official church policy.
And when I approach a factual situation that involves the ‘other side’ with precisely the same analytical steps and tactics? What’s happening then? Moments of lucidity and clear thinking?
I say that what’s immoral and disgusting is your willingness to murder a fellow human being, simply because that human being is unborn and thus defenseless.
Of course, I recognize that this is simply my opinion, and not the law.
I agree that the statutory requirement of specific intent can be met by the evidence of the cover-up – that creates a factual record that will absolutely sustain a verdict of guilty. It’s evidence that is legally sufficient for guilt.
But I’m arguing that it’s not true. I’m arguing that even though the evidence would allow conviction, as a matter of fact, Mahoney never intended to hinder prosecution. He intended to protect the Church. That’s what was in his mind.
Your first point is conceded. when I said the grand jury failed to indict him, I was quoting an analysis I half-remembered. I have been trying to find it. i can’t. I withdraw the comment. The grand jury did not indict him, period.
I stand by that. The hypothetical clearly and unambiguously says, “… the evidence shows that my intent was not to protect my sibling…” The specific intent to protect the sibling is an element of the crime.
Do you really need a cite for the proposition that each and every element of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
No – since intent may be inferred, with a person presumed to intend the reasonably forseeable outcomes of his actions, there’s no contradiction.
Well… OK. Perhaps “no evidence” is the wrong phrase. I’m saying that he didn’t. I’m admitting that a finder of fact could find otherwise.
I dunno. I haven’t ever seen you blatantly misrepresent events and torture legal concepts (which is not anything resembling ‘analytical steps’, although your use of the term ‘tactics’ kind of proves my point) beyond any possible rationality while ignoring all objections and queries when it’s not for ‘your side’.
You’re right about the hypothetical as stated, but I think it was misstated. In any realistic scenario roughly fitting the hypothetical’s description, the person’s primary intention would be to protect the parents from knowing their son to be a criminal, but they would have a secondary intention to protect the son from prosecution, in order to protect the parents.
But a secondary intention is an intention just as surely as a primary one is. To my knowledge, the laws under discussion don’t make a distinction between the two kinds of intention.
Someone who undertakes an action that ends up killing a human being, when they did not know the action would kill a human being, hasn’t done anything wrong (at least not by virtue of just the here-stated facts). So your characterization of the action as “immoral” seems off the mark. People who kill fetuses in ectopic pregnancies typically don’t think the fetus is a human being. I certainly don’t.
Correct. But the laws make a distinction about whether any intention, primary or otherwise, actually exists.
So the original hypothesis was: … the evidence shows that my intent was not to protect my sibling…. No conviction is possible.
But the new hypothesis is: …the evidence shows that my primary intent was not to protect my sibling… and leaves open the possibility that a shared but secondary intent WAS to protect the parents.
But you continue to pretend that your view on Mahoney’s motive is somehow a legal standard. It’s not. Not even close.
Take a look at your comment from this post above: “If, however, you do agree with that statement – if Mahoney could have caused these molesting priests to be removed and punished without staining the coffers or reputation of the Church, he would have – then Mahoney’s not a criminal.”
That is not even close to the standards for determining specific intent. If Charles Manson could have started a race war without killing Sharon Tate and the others doesn’t make one lick of difference to whether or not he had the specific intent to kill them. And the fact Mahoney wanted to protect the Church means absolutely nothing to whether or not he had the specific intent to help the priests avoid arrest or prosecution. The fact he really would have liked to been able to accomplish his motive without committing a crime matters even less.
You’re leaving a false impression that somehow the law recognizes that a “good” motive can somehow override specific intent. That’s simply not true.
Good.
Again, you’re falling into the same problem in confusing motive and specific intent and deciding there is only one available at any given time. I’ve seen absolutely nothing to indicate that that conclusion has any basis in the law. For someone who spends a great deal of time and energy correcting other about their misuse of legal phrases or terms, I find it … troubling … that you continue to wallow in the misunderstanding of intent as it relates to criminal law.
Good. Now if we could only go back in time and have you simply say that you think Mahoney didn’t have the specific intent to stop the arrest or prosecution of the priests because … well because you want to believe it, we’d be all good. We wouldn’t have had to delve into your misrepresentations of why the grand jury didn’t indict, the mutual exclusivity of motive v. intent confusion you continue to sow, or your conclusions on the lack of evidence.
Logic dictates that your belief system would require all females of child-bearing ages to be prohibited by law from participating in any activity that could:
Damage the Ovaries/Fallopian Tubes/ Uterus.
Interfere with the ovulatory cycle.
These activities would include but not be limited to all athletic activities as well as running, jumping, falling, bicycle riding, wrestling with siblings at home and so on. Because your disgust over the murderous termination of a small bundle of cells logically extends to unknowing abortion of a pregnancy.
Ingestion of any food or material that can intentionally or unintentionally interfere with fertility or the embedding of a fertilized egg in the wall of the uterus.
Discard the living woman- it’s clearly all about the zygotes. WHY won’t SOMEONE thinkn about the rights of the zygotes!!???
Oh wait. They now have their moral champion. :rolleyes:
So. Rick. Got a daughter? Wife? Sister? Mother? Aunt? Do any of them ride horses? Run? ( Studies show that long term pattern jogging can tip and damage the uterus ) Do gymnastics? Ride a bike? If so, we must assume you’re not only prepared but eagerly awaiting the opportunity to drag them into court on murder charges.
Sick thing is, I betcha sleep really well at night.