• delirious_owl@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Its always been intent. If you pay with counterfeit bills but didn’t realize because you got them from the shop that gave you change, you didn’t intend to do fraud.

    Intent matters, always has.

      • spongebue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It seems like it to you and me. At a trial, we’d hear their side of the story. Maybe there’s some explanation that could make it somewhat reasonable, and you would have a hard time convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

        If I remember correctly, students had to pay extra to take their laptops home, I believe an insurance fee of some kind. The student whose family filed a lawsuit did not pay that. The laptop was supposed to be at school, but was not. In that case, there may have been reasonable doubt that the school was trying to track down its missing property that should not be outside of school grounds.

    • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      But they did mean to take pictures of minors in the privacy of their bedrooms in the name of stopping petty theft which I’m doubtful would have occurred on any meaningful scale in the first place. Whether they meant it “criminally” seems immaterial here. I think they got off exceptionally light, and it’s a travesty of justice. You won’t convince me otherwise.

      I feel very sure we have prisons full of people who didn’t mean to do whatever they did to be there.