Should lack of intent mean no charges or jail?

[Timmy]

It worked for Hillary but, apparently, real people can't get away with it.

In this case, the people going to jail were not directly responsible for the screw up nor were they aware of the problem. But, since they were in charge and responsible for providing oversight to ensure that the law regarding safety measures were upheld, the father and son have to spend 3 months in jail.

Compare this to Hillary, who also was also in charge of upholding safety measures but made a conscious decision to break them. In that case, a supposed lack of intent was the only thing preventing charges from being pressed. And the consequences could have jeopardized the entire country. She is just too fucking stupid to know that, if you believe her.

So, lawyers in this latest case argued that it was unfair because the corporate officials had no intent to harm anyone. They had no idea that subordinates were not following the proper procedure. While inspections are necessary to ensure quality control, it's impossible to do that every day. So, the guys at the top are facing jail because lower level employees dropped the ball. Not like the officials set up an insufficient quality control division in their bathroom.

In the end, it's clear that the "lack of intent" defense only applies to a Clinton, no matter how serious the crime.

"The U.S. Supreme Court declined in May to hear the appeals of Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son, Peter DeCoster, without comment. Both have been sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett to serve three months in prison. The sentences jarred the food and drug manufacturing industry because it's rare that corporate officials are held personally responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness.

Business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the libertarian Cato Institute think tank filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal of their sentences. The groups argued that it is unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations that they were either unaware of or that were committed by subordinates. The groups said it's highly unusual to attach a criminal penalty and prison time to executives when there is no proof of intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.

"This sanction will slow business growth and innovation," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

Bennett in his 68-page sentencing opinion filed in April 2015 concluded that prison time was necessary to deter officials from marketing unsafe food.

"Given the defendants' careless oversight and repeated violations of safety standards, there is an increased likelihood that these offenses, or offenses like these, could happen again," he wrote. "The punishment will also serve to effectively deter against the marketing of unsafe foods and widespread harm to public health by similarly situated corporate officials and other executives in the industry."

Egg executives in salmonella case must report to prison

Depends on the crime & the circumstances. In Hillary's case you know damn well there was intent.

What was the crime by the way? That old espionage law they tried to box her in ?

Talk about "witch hunt ".

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It worked for Hillary but, apparently, real people can't get away with it.

In this case, the people going to jail were not directly responsible for the screw up nor were they aware of the problem. But, since they were in charge and responsible for providing oversight to ensure that the law regarding safety measures were upheld, the father and son have to spend 3 months in jail.

Compare this to Hillary, who also was also in charge of upholding safety measures but made a conscious decision to break them. In that case, a supposed lack of intent was the only thing preventing charges from being pressed. And the consequences could have jeopardized the entire country. She is just too fucking stupid to know that, if you believe her.

So, lawyers in this latest case argued that it was unfair because the corporate officials had no intent to harm anyone. They had no idea that subordinates were not following the proper procedure. While inspections are necessary to ensure quality control, it's impossible to do that every day. So, the guys at the top are facing jail because lower level employees dropped the ball. Not like the officials set up an insufficient quality control division in their bathroom.

In the end, it's clear that the "lack of intent" defense only applies to a Clinton, no matter how serious the crime.

"The U.S. Supreme Court declined in May to hear the appeals of Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son, Peter DeCoster, without comment. Both have been sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett to serve three months in prison. The sentences jarred the food and drug manufacturing industry because it's rare that corporate officials are held personally responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness.

Business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the libertarian Cato Institute think tank filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal of their sentences. The groups argued that it is unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations that they were either unaware of or that were committed by subordinates. The groups said it's highly unusual to attach a criminal penalty and prison time to executives when there is no proof of intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.

"This sanction will slow business growth and innovation," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

Bennett in his 68-page sentencing opinion filed in April 2015 concluded that prison time was necessary to deter officials from marketing unsafe food.

"Given the defendants' careless oversight and repeated violations of safety standards, there is an increased likelihood that these offenses, or offenses like these, could happen again," he wrote. "The punishment will also serve to effectively deter against the marketing of unsafe foods and widespread harm to public health by similarly situated corporate officials and other executives in the industry."

Egg executives in salmonella case must report to prison

Depends on the crime & the circumstances. In Hillary's case you know damn well there was intent.

What was the crime by the way? That old espionage law they tried to box her in ?

Talk about "witch hunt ".

At lest you acknowledge she's a witch.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Prime example . Drunk driving .

The driver doesn't intend to kill someone . It's still manslaughter.

Is the absence of intent the legal (burden of proof) difference between (non-justifiable/unlawful) "murder" and "manslaughter?" The answer is "yes."

What's important to note about the specific example you offered -- murder vs. manslaughter -- is that society deems killing egregious enough that it has enacted statutes that permit prosecution for homicides that lack "malice aforethought." Manslaughter statutes are one example of them. Many, but not all acts -- particularly non-violent ones -- have such "step-down" alternative statutes/provisions for which individuals can be charged so as to exact a moral/ethical, jurisprudential and/or penal "pound of flesh."

 

[usmbguest5318]

Prime example . Drunk driving .

The driver doesn't intend to kill someone . It's still manslaughter.

And yet when Hillary didn't intend to risk national security with a homebrew server, and many operations happened to fail because info was leaked, she didn't face a single consequence.

Rules are rules. Hillary knowingly broke the rules and got off the hook.

These two business people are going to jail over something they didn't know about and are taking the blame because they are in a position of power and had the responsibility to ensure their employees were following safety standards.

By your own admission, intent doesn't matter. If you are responsible for something, you should face the music when shit goes wrong. Unless you are Hillary Clinton.

many operations happened to fail because info was leaked

Would that someone identify those failed operations? Maybe someone did and I was in St. Barts that day, not minding U.S. news?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Prime example . Drunk driving .

The driver doesn't intend to kill someone . It's still manslaughter.

And yet when Hillary didn't intend to risk national security with a homebrew server, and many operations happened to fail because info was leaked, she didn't face a single consequence.

Rules are rules. Hillary knowingly broke the rules and got off the hook.

These two business people are going to jail over something they didn't know about and are taking the blame because they are in a position of power and had the responsibility to ensure their employees were following safety standards.

By your own admission, intent doesn't matter. If you are responsible for something, you should face the music when shit goes wrong. Unless you are Hillary Clinton.

Rules are rules. Hillary knowingly broke the rules and got off the hook.

Rules exist to inform principals, not to proscribe their acting on their best judgment.

If we didn't want experienced and expert humans to act on their best judgment, we could assign a mechanized and computerized automaton to run our organizations and make all our key policy decisions.

 

[ClosedCaption]

...and yet they can't find anything wrong with Flynn, Jared, Trump, Feliz Sater, Carter Page, Jeff Sessions etc etc

More salt....

Call in the trucks, the Midwest could use this endless supply for winter.

More dodge. You can't hang with me bruh

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

...and yet they can't find anything wrong with Flynn, Jared, Trump, Feliz Sater, Carter Page, Jeff Sessions etc etc

More salt....

Call in the trucks, the Midwest could use this endless supply for winter.

More dodge. You can't hang with me bruh

And there's the punt.... nice

 

[2aguy]

It worked for Hillary but, apparently, real people can't get away with it.

In this case, the people going to jail were not directly responsible for the screw up nor were they aware of the problem. But, since they were in charge and responsible for providing oversight to ensure that the law regarding safety measures were upheld, the father and son have to spend 3 months in jail.

Compare this to Hillary, who also was also in charge of upholding safety measures but made a conscious decision to break them. In that case, a supposed lack of intent was the only thing preventing charges from being pressed. And the consequences could have jeopardized the entire country. She is just too fucking stupid to know that, if you believe her.

So, lawyers in this latest case argued that it was unfair because the corporate officials had no intent to harm anyone. They had no idea that subordinates were not following the proper procedure. While inspections are necessary to ensure quality control, it's impossible to do that every day. So, the guys at the top are facing jail because lower level employees dropped the ball. Not like the officials set up an insufficient quality control division in their bathroom.

In the end, it's clear that the "lack of intent" defense only applies to a Clinton, no matter how serious the crime.

"The U.S. Supreme Court declined in May to hear the appeals of Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son, Peter DeCoster, without comment. Both have been sentenced by U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett to serve three months in prison. The sentences jarred the food and drug manufacturing industry because it's rare that corporate officials are held personally responsible for an outbreak of foodborne illness.

Business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the libertarian Cato Institute think tank filed friend-of-the-court briefs backing the DeCosters' appeal of their sentences. The groups argued that it is unfair to send corporate executives to prison for violations that they were either unaware of or that were committed by subordinates. The groups said it's highly unusual to attach a criminal penalty and prison time to executives when there is no proof of intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.

"This sanction will slow business growth and innovation," said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.

Bennett in his 68-page sentencing opinion filed in April 2015 concluded that prison time was necessary to deter officials from marketing unsafe food.

"Given the defendants' careless oversight and repeated violations of safety standards, there is an increased likelihood that these offenses, or offenses like these, could happen again," he wrote. "The punishment will also serve to effectively deter against the marketing of unsafe foods and widespread harm to public health by similarly situated corporate officials and other executives in the industry."

Egg executives in salmonella case must report to prison

They SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what their subordinates were up too .

Hillary didn't even commit a crime . Unless you want to stretch that espionage law.

Moron...hillary commited felonies.......multiple felonies with the way she had a secret, unsecured server and then destroyed government documents.....

 

[2aguy]

Prime example . Drunk driving .

The driver doesn't intend to kill someone . It's still manslaughter.

And yet when Hillary didn't intend to risk national security with a homebrew server, and many operations happened to fail because info was leaked, she didn't face a single consequence.

Rules are rules. Hillary knowingly broke the rules and got off the hook.

These two business people are going to jail over something they didn't know about and are taking the blame because they are in a position of power and had the responsibility to ensure their employees were following safety standards.

By your own admission, intent doesn't matter. If you are responsible for something, you should face the music when shit goes wrong. Unless you are Hillary Clinton.

Except there's no crime saying you can't have your own server .

Yes...there is....she used it for government documents that were classified....she then destroyed those documents, servers and blackberries without permission......destroying government property....

 

[FA_Q2]

...and yet they can't find anything wrong with Flynn, Jared, Trump, Feliz Sater, Carter Page, Jeff Sessions etc etc

Flynn is cooked. They have already found enough to charge him when they discovered he was receiving cash from Russian officials and hiding that on his disclosures.

The only reason that he is not already being charged with anything, imho, is they are hoping for a bigger fish.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hillary belongs to the protected political class and even more so is one of the prime leaders in it. There is no way she would have ever been charged with anything.

 

[Bassman007]

...and yet they can't find anything wrong with Flynn, Jared, Trump, Feliz Sater, Carter Page, Jeff Sessions etc etc

Flynn is cooked. They have already found enough to charge him when they discovered he was receiving cash from Russian officials and hiding that on his disclosures.

The only reason that he is not already being charged with anything, imho, is they are hoping for a bigger fish.

Wrong, if they knew that Flynn was a spy, and furthermore that you know this as well, which means everyone knows, then he would be arrested.

Thus you are fake news, or if u believe this, perhaps just dumb

 

[FA_Q2]

...and yet they can't find anything wrong with Flynn, Jared, Trump, Feliz Sater, Carter Page, Jeff Sessions etc etc

Flynn is cooked. They have already found enough to charge him when they discovered he was receiving cash from Russian officials and hiding that on his disclosures.

The only reason that he is not already being charged with anything, imho, is they are hoping for a bigger fish.

Wrong, if they knew that Flynn was a spy, and furthermore that you know this as well, which means everyone knows, then he would be arrested.

Thus you are fake news, or if u believe this, perhaps just dumb

Flynn accepted payments from a foreign government during a time that it was illegal to do so. That is not fake news - it is fact. There is no way around that.

Such an act is punishable with prison.

 

[Care4all]

Prime example . Drunk driving .

The driver doesn't intend to kill someone . It's still manslaughter.

And yet when Hillary didn't intend to risk national security with a homebrew server, and many operations happened to fail because info was leaked, she didn't face a single consequence.

Rules are rules. Hillary knowingly broke the rules and got off the hook.

These two business people are going to jail over something they didn't know about and are taking the blame because they are in a position of power and had the responsibility to ensure their employees were following safety standards.

By your own admission, intent doesn't matter. If you are responsible for something, you should face the music when shit goes wrong. Unless you are Hillary Clinton.

uhhhhh....hogwash! NOTHING FAILED due to her emails....she was NEVER HACKED....just ask the Russians or Assange at wikileaks...they never got a single one of her server emails with their hackings...and out of all the alleged top secret classified 'OH MY GOD!' emails reported on by the rightwing media, ONLY 4, have not been DECLASSIFIED... the original 4 found by the inspector general that triggered the investigation....

 

[usmbguest5318]

Prime example . Drunk driving .

The driver doesn't intend to kill someone . It's still manslaughter.

And yet when Hillary didn't intend to risk national security with a homebrew server, and many operations happened to fail because info was leaked, she didn't face a single consequence.

Rules are rules. Hillary knowingly broke the rules and got off the hook.

These two business people are going to jail over something they didn't know about and are taking the blame because they are in a position of power and had the responsibility to ensure their employees were following safety standards.

By your own admission, intent doesn't matter. If you are responsible for something, you should face the music when shit goes wrong. Unless you are Hillary Clinton.

uhhhhh....hogwash! NOTHING FAILED due to her emails....she was NEVER HACKED....just ask the Russians or Assange at wikileaks...they never got a single one of her server emails with their hackings...and out of all the alleged top secret classified 'OH MY GOD!' emails reported on by the rightwing media, ONLY 4, have not been DECLASSIFIED... the original 4 found by the inspector general that triggered the investigation....

they never got a single one of her server emails with their hackings.

...Unless, of course, they simply ignored Trump's request to try to find them.

 

[Seawytch]

Judge to Clinton: "Did you keep a private email server?"
Clinton: "Yes. As did both my predecessors."
Judge: "Can we examine the emails of those predecessors?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor, they were destroyed when they left office"
Judge: "And no law was broken?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"

 

[usmbguest5318]

Judge to Clinton: "Did you keep a private email server?"
Clinton: "Yes. As did both my predecessors."
Judge: "Can we examine the emails of those predecessors?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor, they were destroyed when they left office"
Judge: "And no law was broken?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"

With Clinton, the matter didn't get before a jurist, so the conversation depicted above never happened. I'm not sure what point you're making by positing the above theoretical dialogue between a judge and Clinton/her attorney.

 

[Seawytch]

Judge to Clinton: "Did you keep a private email server?"
Clinton: "Yes. As did both my predecessors."
Judge: "Can we examine the emails of those predecessors?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor, they were destroyed when they left office"
Judge: "And no law was broken?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"

With Clinton, the matter didn't get before a jurist, so the conversation depicted above never happened. I'm not sure what point you're making by positing the above theoretical dialogue between a judge and Clinton/her attorney.

It's what would happen if they ever actually were successful in indicting her...

 

[Timmy]

Prime example . Drunk driving .

The driver doesn't intend to kill someone . It's still manslaughter.

And yet when Hillary didn't intend to risk national security with a homebrew server, and many operations happened to fail because info was leaked, she didn't face a single consequence.

Rules are rules. Hillary knowingly broke the rules and got off the hook.

These two business people are going to jail over something they didn't know about and are taking the blame because they are in a position of power and had the responsibility to ensure their employees were following safety standards.

By your own admission, intent doesn't matter. If you are responsible for something, you should face the music when shit goes wrong. Unless you are Hillary Clinton.

Except there's no crime saying you can't have your own server .

Yes...there is....she used it for government documents that were classified....she then destroyed those documents, servers and blackberries without permission......destroying government property....

She didn't destroy anything . You act like because she used it for some gov work that makes everything government property.

 

[Timmy]

Judge to Clinton: "Did you keep a private email server?"
Clinton: "Yes. As did both my predecessors."
Judge: "Can we examine the emails of those predecessors?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor, they were destroyed when they left office"
Judge: "And no law was broken?"
Attorney for Clinton: "No your honor."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"

More like

Clinton "we turned over 10s of thousands emails . The others were private emails"

Emails go two ways . How can Hillary destroy emails sent from the state department? The department has them on its server .