• octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s worth reading the entire article, it just gets worse and worse.

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Attorney’s Office, and Montgomery County District Attorney all initiated criminal investigations of the matter, which they combined and then closed because they did not find evidence “that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone involved had criminal intent”.

    That’s not even close to the worst thing in the article, but GG justice system. I’ll remember this one day when I’m in court. “Well I didn’t have criminal intent.”

    That’s a defense now?? One that removes the need to even have a trial at all??

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Its been a defence for several hundred years, in fact! Showing intent is one of the three things you need to establish in every criminal case for it to be considered valid. Fuck the cops for dropping this case though, how in hell was there no intent to commit a crime here wtf.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        “Strict liability” crimes are the exception to that rule. A lot of relatively minor crimes, like code violations or letting minors into a bar, are in that category.

      • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not every criminal case. There’s strict liability crimes, the most well-known being statutory rape.

      • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Weird, I’ve literally always heard “ignorance of the law is no excuse to break the law”, which seems to imply criminal intent doesn’t matter. Only that the action that was take was illegal.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I fully understand your point.

      But on the other hand, we’re in a period where the people doing this haven’t experienced it themselves. Nor have they learned about this in school. It’s all so new and so many people are ignorant and stupid when it comes to technology.

      We need cases like these to set precedents so we can define something as criminal intent. People should be allowed to make a mistake at least once, and the government actually recognizes this.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        In a much more polite way than I usually say it, we can agree to disagree here. I can also see your point.

        But, I think any rational adult in the room should have said, “So we’re going to deploy software on computers that kids use in their bedrooms that will randomly or on demand take pictures of whatever is happening in that room? No fucking way, it’s not worth gestures around compared to the possibility that a couple laptops get stolen along the way. We can find another approach.”

        No one should need an understanding of technology to understand why that is bad, and the WIkipedia entry makes it very plain that key figures in the decision knew that was precisely what was being done.

        I’m sorry, this is the George Costanza defense.

    • delirious_owl@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 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.

      • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 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.