I sold a diamond ring on Craigslist and now the buyer is threating to arrest me

[JakeB]

I know it for a fact because I know the person.

So you're guessing? Okay, fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. There are certain people I know who (in my opinion) would never steal.

it proves that a person can be convicted for a crime that would require intent when there, in fact, was no intent to steal.

Nobody said otherwise. Just because the law says that intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't mean that innocent people have never been convicted of crimes.

irrelevant

ibid

ibid

ibid

ibid

How was he caught?

ibid

That stuff is all relevant. The detailed facts are of the utmost importance in any criminal case.

the only evidence was that an item was innocently left on the cart and not scanned.

I'm sure you're leaving out a few details. Despite the fact that you think the specific circumstances are irrelevant, they are not. Was the item a small pack of gum that could go unseen, or was it a large screen TV? Did he buy anything at the register or did he just walk out the door? Where was he caught? The specific facts are very relevant.

A blind person who bought $300 worth of groceries, but was caught with an an unpaid pack of gum in his cart 5 feet from the checkout register is going to come across differently than a guy with 20/20 vision who stuck nothing except a TV onto his cart, and who then walked out of the store without paying and was caught loading the TV into the trunk of his car. Since intent must generally be proven with circumstantial evidence, the circumstances are kind of a big deal.

Fine, if you want to go to a more serious situation because shoplifting is such a meager crime; research innocent people that were sentenced to prison, or even executed for crimes they did not commit. Obviously there could not have been any intent since they did not commit the crime but lo and behold, those people sat in prison, or even died because intent was inferred to such an extent that the judge and the jury believed the prosecutor.

Neither I, nor anybody else in this thread, said that all people who are convicted of theft actually had intent. And I don't know why you are even going down this path. It has nothing to do with anything we've discussed up to this point.

 

[justalayman]

JakeB;2386603]So you're guessing? Okay, fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. There are certain people I know who (in my opinion) would never steal.

ya see jake, this is part of your problem. I know this person well. They did not intend on stealing anything. It is not a question in my mind nor the persons mind this involved. There simply was no intent to steal.

Nobody said otherwise. Just because the law says that intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't mean that innocent people have never been convicted of crimes

.You are the one that was making the big deal about intent and how it must be proven so explain how intent can be proven when there was no intent

That stuff is all relevant. The detailed facts are of the utmost importance in any criminal case.

NO, it isn't. We are not trying that case. We were discussing intent and I know there was no intent. Either accept that or not but the facts of the case are not relevant to this discussion. There simply was no intent.

I'm sure you're leaving out a few details. Despite the fact that you think the specific circumstances are irrelevant, they are not. Was the item a small pack of gum that could go unseen, or was it a large screen TV? Did he buy anything at the register or did he just walk out the door? Where was he caught? The specific facts are very relevant

. NO, they are not relevant because we were addressing intent and I know there was no intent. This, again, is your problem. I know this person and stealing is definitely not something they would consider.

A blind person who bought $300 worth of groceries, but was caught with an an unpaid pack of gum in his cart 5 feet from the checkout register is going to come across differently than a guy with 20/20 vision who stuck nothing except a TV onto his cart, and who then walked out of the store without paying and was caught loading the TV into the trunk of his car. Since intent must generally be proven with circumstantial evidence, the circumstances are kind of a big deal.

So NOW you want to argue that circumstantial evidence does prove intent. Now, YOU need to make up your mind. That is exactly what I was saying long ago but you wanted to argue some invention of your own where intent was somehow provable as a distinct and separate element of the case. It isn't and it can't be.

Neither I, nor anybody else in this thread, said that all people who are convicted of theft actually had intent. And I don't know why you are even going down this path. It has nothing to do with anything we've discussed up to this point.

YOU said it must be proven. I asked for you to explain how intent can be proven when a person did not even commit the crime, especially one as egregious as that qualified for the death penalty. Now you want to start back peddling and use my explanation of how intent is proven.

The fact is, intent is often an accepted element if the rest of the evidence shows the person guilty of the crime. That is the real world jake, welcome to it.

 

[JakeB]

YOU said it must be proven. I asked for you to explain how intent can be proven when a person did not even commit the crime, especially one as egregious as that qualified for the death penalty. Now you want to start back peddling and use my explanation of how intent is proven.

Oh, now I see where you were going with this failed argument. You're mixed up about what it means to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Arizona Supreme Court's approved jury instructions:

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him/her guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he/she is not guilty, you must give him/her the benefit of the doubt and find him/her not guilty.

Proving something beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as proving it beyond all doubt.

The fact is, intent is often an accepted element if the rest of the evidence shows the person guilty of the crime.

That "fact" is wrong. Innocent people are convicted because the law doesn't require absolute proof. That certainly doesn't mean that the law allows intent to be presumed (except by statute). Intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No more, no less.

Moreover, your argument is out of touch with the "real world" as you put it. From what I've seen, most people who are innocently convicted never committed the physical act, yet that doesn't mean proof that they had committed the physical act was unnecessary at their trial.

 

[justalayman]

That "fact" is wrong. Innocent people are convicted because the law doesn't require absolute proof. That certainly doesn't mean that the law allows intent to be presumed (except by statute). Intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No more, no less.

we were speaking of INTENT. If they did not commit the crime, there can be, in no way, anytime, any inkling of intent because...THEY DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME, THEREFORE, THERE COULD BE NO INTENT. How do you even prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent when, in fact, there was NO intent. Not one bit. Not even a hint.

Moreover, your argument is out of touch with the "real world" as you put it. From what I've seen, most people who are innocently convicted never committed the physical act, yet that doesn't mean proof that they had committed the physical act was unnecessary at their trial.

From what I've seen, most people who are innocently convicted never committed the physical act,

Duh!! Ya think?

Of course they didn't. What kind of ignorant statement is this? That is the point; they did not commit the crime.

yet that doesn't mean proof that they had committed the physical act was unnecessary at their trial.

there can be no physical proof they committed the crime if they did not commit the crime.

don't you get it? There can be no proof they committed the crime and there can be no proof of intent YET they do get convicted. This entire thread is about people getting convicted with little or no proof of committing a crime and you come here and argue this. You are simply a waste of time.




GET IT?? Innocent people cannot have intent to commit a crime they did not commit therefore, your argument that intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is impossible. Any finding of intent would simply be WRONG because, again, there never was any intent because, again, they did not commit the crime.

This supports my argument long ago that intent does not get proven such as you suggest.

a prosecutor must convince the jury that there was intent. that is it.

GET IT??

 

[JakeB]

Before I continue, please be aware that your responses indicate true ignorance with regard to the law, and that makes this discussion difficult.

How do you even prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent when, in fact, there was NO intent.

Let's twist the OJ case a bit (for no other reason than I remember some of the evidence):

We have a woman who was practically decapitated on her front lawn. That isn't likely to happen by accident. Let's say the medical examiner testifies that based upon the bodily injuries and his expert medical opinion, the only reasonable explanation is that somebody forcefully, repeatedly, and methodically cut her to pieces. A reasonable person may conclude that the killer, whoever he may be, intended his physical actions beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, let's say the prosecution admits into evidence a shoeprint, a bloody glove, and DNA. Let's also say that those pieces of evidence indicate that OJ is the killer, and in this scenario the jury buys it!

Let's put the case together now: The jury believes the killer had intent based upon the medical examiner's testimony (note that OJ himself doesn't even need to be mentioned). The jury believes the shoeprint, glove and DNA make OJ the killer. Since OJ is the killer, and the killer had intent, that means OJ had intent! Brilliant. They convict OJ.

Now let's say that 3 weeks after the conviction, somebody admits that he broke into OJ's house and stole his shoe, then wore the shoe to Nicole Brown's house and brutally murdered her, then put the glove in OJ's yard, and put the DNA in OJ's truck. For good measure, let's say this guy even hands the cops a video of him doing it all.

In that scenario, OJ is innocent, but intent was not just assumed. Intent was proven beyond a reasonable doubt with the medical examiner's testimony. While that scenario seems ridiculous, the gist of it is very common. The prosecutor proves that the physical act was committed with intent, and he proves that the defendant committed the physical act. When you put it all together, the prosecutor proved that the defendant had intent.

From what I've seen, most people who are innocently convicted never committed the physical act

Duh!! Ya think?

Of course they didn't. What kind of ignorant statement is this? That is the point; they did not commit the crime.

Now this is funny. Of course the innocent people didn't commit the physical act? So only guilty people commit physical acts? I guess you lied about your buddy shoplifting since he did commit the physical act. Interesting.

there can be no physical proof they committed the crime if they did not commit the crime.

don't you get it? There can be no proof they committed the crime and there can be no proof of intent YET they do get convicted. This entire thread is about people getting convicted with little or no proof of committing a crime and you come here and argue this. You are simply a waste of time.

So in my OJ example above, there was no physical proof? What were the shoeprint, glove and DNA?

Here's the first definition of "proof" in the dictionary: "Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something"

That stuff seems like proof to me.

GET IT?? Innocent people cannot have intent to commit a crime they did not commit therefore, your argument that intent must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is impossible. Any finding of intent would simply be WRONG because, again, there never was any intent because, again, they did not commit the crime.

I agree that innocent people cannot have intent. I agree that any finding of intent in the case of an innocent person would be wrong. Proving that an innocent person had intent beyond a reasonable doubt, however, is not impossible.

First, re-review the definition of "reasonable doubt." The prosecutor does not have to prove intent beyond any doubt or with absolute certainty. Second, in my OJ example the killer did have intent beyond all doubt and with absolute certainty. The problem was with the identity of the killer, not intent.

a prosecutor must convince the jury that there was intent.

Now that I can agree with, though you should have added "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

[justalayman]

Let's twist the OJ case a bit (for no other reason than I remember some of the evidence):

why? nobody was convicted of the crime. It makes the case irrelevant.




.

I agree that innocent people cannot have intent. I agree that any finding of intent in the case of an innocent person would be wrong. Proving that an innocent person had intent beyond a reasonable doubt, however, is not impossible.

Yes, it is impossible because there is no intent so you cannot prove intent. You can never prove something is there when it is not actually there. You can wrongly infer intent but you can not prove actual intent.

Proving intent when the person is totally innocent is like convincing a man the sun is blue. If I am persuasive enough, I can do it. Even if there is an opposing party, if I am more persuasive, the man will "see" the sun as being blue even though it is not, in fact, blue. It is salesmanship, not proof.

Just the same, if the DA is persuasive enough, s/he can convince a jury that there is intent, when in fact, there is none. They will use the facts they have and use them to sell the jury on the fact that there was intent. That does not mean there was intent.

It has little to do with proving it as much as it is convincing those that need to be convinced in order for the party doing the convincing to win their argument.

You are stuck in that black and white world. There are a lot of shades in between that black and white.

what makes you so laughable is the fact that in the beginning of this thread, you argued that if a judge did not see intent, he would simply dismiss the case. From that point, I have spoken about an innocent person being convicted regardless of the fact there was never intent and now you want to argue that intent does not even need to be present for a person to be convicted.

sounds like you are arguing my original point.

thanks for proving me correct, again.

 

[JakeB]

why? nobody was convicted of the crime. It makes the case irrelevant.

If you can't even follow a simple hypo, then there's clearly no point continuing. You just don't get it and you probably never will.

 

[justalayman]

If you can't even follow a simple hypo, then there's clearly no point continuing. You just don't get it and you probably never will.

that case is irrelevant because nobody was found guilty, therefore there were no appeals that could have been presented, including an appeal based on failure to prove intent.

that is why that case is not relevant to this situation.

you disappoint me. I thought you were smarter than that.

 

[JakeB]

that case is irrelevant because nobody was found guilty

That opinion is remarkable for its shallowness. So your brain just can't wrap itself around a typical "what if" scenario, huh? A simple change of facts is just too confusing?

Just the same, if the DA is persuasive enough, s/he can convince a jury that there is intent, when in fact, there is none. They will use the facts they have and use them to sell the jury on the fact that there was intent. That does not mean there was intent.

It has little to do with proving it as much as it is convincing those that need to be convinced in order for the party doing the convincing to win their argument.

Now that quote is a true gem. Allow me to retort: In the law, proving something to a jury is the same as convincing a jury.

Let me repeat that: In the law, proving something to a jury is the same as convincing a jury.

And a third time: In the law, proving something to a jury is the same as convincing a jury.

Here are a couple of definitions found in a dictionary:

Prove: Provide evidence for

Proof: Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something

And here's the Arizona Supreme Court for the second time:

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him/her guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he/she is not guilty, you must give him/her the benefit of the doubt and find him/her not guilty.

Now do you get it? Of course you don't.

 

[justalayman]

E=JakeB;2389171]That opinion is remarkable for its shallowness. So your brain just can't wrap itself around a typical "what if" scenario, huh? A simple change of facts is just too confusing?

I can "wrap my mind around it just fine. That is why you do not argue hypotheticals because I could easily give you 1000 variables that would change the situation dramatically.

Now that quote is a true gem. Allow me to retort: In the law, proving something to a jury is the same as convincing a jury.

Let me repeat that: In the law, proving something to a jury is the same as convincing a jury.

And a third time: In the law, proving something to a jury is the same as convincing a jury.

Here are a couple of definitions found in a dictionary:

get into real life. A trial is a horse and pony show. If you want to use the OJ thing, that is a prime example. Most everybody that was not there believed he was proven guilty. Many in the courtroom and many who have reviewed the case accept he was proven guilty.

Guess what, he was not found guilty. The defense put on a better show.

That's is part of the problem with our courts; human emotion, human belief, human shortcomings all play a part. Why do you thing they spend thousands upon thousands to do a jury study and are so specific about a jury.

Wake up man and enter the real world. Not some world where you books "prove" everything. Geesh.



Real life jake, real life. Apparently you need to get one.

 

[JakeB]

I can "wrap my mind around it just fine. That is why you do not argue hypotheticals because I could easily give you 1000 variables that would change the situation dramatically.

Ummm, you asked how intent can be proven when the defendant was innocent. My example was actually very typical. The fact that you can think of new variables that could change the outcome is totally irrelevant. Just what are you trying to argue? This is odd.

get into real life. A trial is a horse and pony show. If you want to use the OJ thing, that is a prime example. Most everybody that was not there believed he was proven guilty. Many in the courtroom and many who have reviewed the case accept he was proven guilty.

Guess what, he was not found guilty. The defense put on a better show.

That's is part of the problem with our courts; human emotion, human belief, human shortcomings all play a part. Why do you thing they spend thousands upon thousands to do a jury study and are so specific about a jury.

Wake up man and enter the real world. Not some world where you books "prove" everything. Geesh.

Real life jake, real life. Apparently you need to get one.

Another classic response that ignores the issue. You're just diverting our attention and backing away from another incorrect claim. Is this number five? Let's see here:

(1) A person cannot be convicted of theft, or fraud, or some other similar crime based upon a mistake of fact. Those crimes require specific intent. That is the law. You disagreed and you are wrong.

(2) Every element of a crime, including intent, must be individually proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecutor. That is the law. You disagreed and you are wrong.

(3) If a judge does not agree that a reasonable person could conclude that every individual element of a crime, including intent, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the judge must acquit the defendant. That is the law. You disagreed and you are wrong.

(4) In order to convict a defendant, a jury must specifically find that every individual element of a crime, including intent, was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the law. You disagreed and you are wrong.

(5) Proving an assertion does not mean that it was established with absolute certainty. That is the law. You disagreed and you are wrong.

How does the above apply to the real world? In the real world, the OP in this thread would not likely ever be prosecuted, let alone convicted. And that's exactly what I told the OP. You're the guy who argued about criminal charges, but then eventually backed down (as with everything else) by claiming that you just meant that it was an unlikely possibility. So who's living in the real world? Seems to me you did little more than waste space with your ramblings.

 

[justalayman]

How does the above apply to the real world? In the real world, the OP in this thread would not likely ever be prosecuted, let alone convicted.

I stated, oh so may posts ago that he could be prosecuted if the info discovered let to a belief there was intent. That was correct then and it is still now. I never argued it was probable, just possible.

And that's exactly what I told the OP. You're the guy who argued about criminal charges, but then eventually backed down (as with everything else) by claiming that you just meant that it was an unlikely possibility.

I still haven't backed down. I still stand by my original statement that the OP could be prosecuted IF the evidence supports charges.

So who's living in the real world?

ME, now where's that damn horse. I wan't to take a few whacks at it even though it died long ago.

 

[JakeB]

Right. Your incorrect assertions about the law, as well as your brilliant claims about unlikely possibilities is real world stuff.

 

[justalayman]

Right. Your incorrect assertions about the law, as well as your brilliant claims about unlikely possibilities is real world stuff.

look jack, I gave you a real world example that proved that intent is not needed to convict, only the presumption of intent as sold by the DA. That is the real world. Now why don't you crawl back into your books and slam them closed like your mind. If you cannot accept what happens in the real world, I will guarantee you would never make it as an attorney. Not everything runs by the book. There are backroom deals and lunch deals done every day and there are innocent people convicted and executed all too often.

Real world rules are not always "by the book"

I'm done arguing with an idiot that simply does not:

1. understand what I have even said in this thread
2. continues to distort what I did say
3. has no comprehension that the real world is not written down in a book to follow and it has shades in between black and white.

Now go bother somebody else. You bore me.