Support the Guide on Patron!

Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's the best part! Also, you can use the arrows on your keyboard to flip through pages quickly.

Use this link to buy the books, and a portion of the proceeds goes to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Join the conversation! There are now 2 comments on this chapter's page 36. He Missed and Maimed Mamie Instead. What are your thoughts?
  1. WJS says

    If Joe previously made his desire to harm Simon public, and then runs him down in the street, how hard a time would he have proving it was an accident? When a guy runs over someone he’s been ranting about hating on facebook (for example), I can easily see a prosecutor thinking it’s more than a coincidence.

    • If Joe had previously and publicly threatened Simon, then I’d imagine defense would probably go for a plea deal on that one (even if it was in fact an accident), unless there’s some kind of hard scientific evidence that it couldn’t have been on purpose. No jury is going to believe that it was a coincidence if there was a prior threat.

      Until we have mind-reading devices, proving mens rea will always be about making reasonable inferences from the available evidence. If A harms B, then a prior threat from A to B is powerful evidence of mens rea.

Class Participation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Support the Guide on Patron!