The jinx of the north

[GaryC 7]

I dunno Gary - there's been several pages explaining the difference.

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

I already pointed out to you that simple example about cross burning. What might seem to be a nuisance crime on a superficial level really being intended to specifically intimidate people, which is surely a far worse crime. Not hard to understand IMO.

No really, I don't understand. The example of the cross burning isn't very clear. We already have a civil rights law that covers that. Why is it necessary to add to the civil rights violation a hate crime violation? And please explain to me how an assault is worse because the criminal did it because of a hatred of a gay person rather than an assault because he wanted his wallet. I really want to understand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno Gary - there's been several pages explaining the difference.

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

I already pointed out to you that simple example about cross burning. What might seem to be a nuisance crime on a superficial level really being intended to specifically intimidate people, which is surely a far worse crime. Not hard to understand IMO.

No really, I don't understand. The example of the cross burning isn't very clear. We already have a civil rights law that covers that. Why is it necessary to add to the civil rights violation a hate crime violation? And please explain to me how an assault is worse because the criminal did it because of a hatred of a gay person rather than an assault because he wanted his wallet. I really want to understand.

As I said:

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

Again - I'm a little perplexed as to how this ties in with your ideas on minimum sentencing. Unless I'm greatly misunderstanding - it seems to me that you're suggesting that everyone receives the same punishment for a crime regardless of why they did it.

This is nothing new - so I'm not sure why you are so opposed to another legal stipulation that defines the specific nature of a specific crime. Here's one example:

New York has a form of felony assault where "serious physical injury" is committed recklessly, not intentionally. After learning about the life-threatening nature of strangulation, it appears that many such incidents could be charged as Assault 1st Degree under New York Penal Law 120.10, subdivision 3.

In August, 2000, we obtained a conviction after jury trial for "reckless depraved" Assault 1st degree, a violent felony, in the Clinton County Court case of People v Scott Miller, using the expert medical testimony and legal theory discussed here. He was sentenced to five years in state prison. Before the Strangulation Conference, it is likely he would have been charged with only a violation or a misdemeanor.

The pertinent statutory definitions follow, along with a Memorandum of Law describing the case-law interpretation of "reckless depraved indifference" and relevant decisions on Assault 1st Degree.

Assault 1st - Penal Law 120.10, sub 3:

Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to another person.

Serious Physical Injury - Penal Law 10.00, sub. 10:

Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

Physical Injury - Penal Law 10.00, sub. 9:

Physical injury means impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

Many strangulation cases create grave risk of death because the pressure from the hands closes off the veins in the front of the neck. This prevents the return of blood from the head, where it was pumped by the arteries.

Brain cells then begin to die within 60 seconds. This is much more life-threatening than closing off the airway. A medical expert can testify at Grand Jury and trial regarding the anatomy and functioning of these structures and explain how easily and quickly a person can be killed this way.

The testimony from the victim will describe what she was going through as she was being strangled. Likely, this will include that she couldn't breathe; she may also may say there were changes in her vision, such as seeing stars, or everything starting to go gray. Isn't this "impairment of condition," amounting to "physical injury" under the Penal Law?

The expert witness will be able to testify about what is going on her with the blood supply being cut off to her brain, explaining these symptoms, and how quickly she would have died if he had not stopped. Isn't this a grave and substantial risk of death?

The following Memo of Law may help answer the defense challenges. . . .

Depraved Indifference Assault

Memorandum of Law

by Penelope D. Clute, Former Clinton County District Attorney

The seminal case expressing the meaning of "depraved indifference recklessness" is People v Register, 60 NY2d 273, 469 NYS2d 599 (1983), where the defendant shot and killed one man and seriously injured two others in a crowded bar. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that intoxication could "negate an element of the crime of depraved mind murder."

The Court of Appeals ruled that intoxication is not a defense or excuse to "depraved mind murder," although it may be to intentional murder. Its analysis started with distinguishing reckless manslaughter from the "depraved indifference recklessness" necessary for murder:

to bring defendant’s conduct within the murder statute, the People were required to establish also that defendant’s act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant’s conduct. 60 NY2d at 274.

The focus is on the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances under which he acted.. "The jury’s proper role . . . was to make a qualitative judgment whether defendant’s act was of such gravity that it placed the crime upon the same level as the taking of life by premeditated design." Id.

The "depraved indifference" requirement

is not an element in the traditional sense but rather a definition of the factual setting in which the risk creating conduct must occur - objective circumstances which are not subject to being negatived by evidence of defendant's intoxication. Id. at 277.

. . . . The phrase "nder circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life" refers to the wantonness of defendant’s conduct and converts the substantial risk present in manslaughter into a very substantial risk present in murder. . . .

However, the focus of the offense is not upon the subjective intent of the defendant, as it is with intentional murder, but rather upon an objective assessment of the degree of risk presented by defendant’s reckless conduct. Id. at 277.

. . . .

. . . . depraved mind murder is a crime involving recklessness plus aggravating circumstances. Id. at 278.

The Court of Appeals emphasized that "depraved mind murder is distinguishable from manslaughter, not by the mental element involved, but by the objective circumstances in which the act occurs. . . . ." Id. "In sum, the statutory requirement that the homicide result from conduct evincing a depraved indifference to human life is a legislative attempt to qualitatively measure egregiously reckless conduct and to differentiate it from manslaughter." Id. at 279.

The criteria set forth in Register were followed by the Court of Appeals in People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20, 544 NYS2d 297 (1989). This was a homicide case where a 15 year old boy deliberately loaded a shotgun with a mix of "live" and "dummy" shells, then pointed the shotgun directly at his 13 year old friend and fired it, saying "Let’s play Polish roulette. Who is first?" In upholding the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the defendant’s conviction for depraved indifference murder, the Court stated that this

is a nonintentional homicide. It differs from manslaughter, however, in that it must be shown that the actor's reckless conduct is imminently dangerous and presents a grave risk of death; [it] depends upon the wantonness of defendant's acts. This is not a mens rea element which focuses "upon the subjective intent of the defendant;" . . . rather it involves "an objective assessment of the degree of risk presented by defendant's reckless conduct." 74 NY2d at 24.

Helpful in assessing the risk-creation aspect is People v Galatro, 84 NY2d 160, 615 NYS2d 650 (1994), where the issue on appeal was the sufficiency of the Grand Jury evidence to support the charge of Reckless Endangerment 2nd Degree. The defendants struck the complainant, knocking him unconscious, then left him in the middle of a busy street. Witnesses to the incident assisted the victim and called the police.

The Supreme Court dismissed the indictment, concluding that the evidence was not legally sufficient to support the reckless endangerment charge. It determined that the defendants’ conduct did not create a substantial risk of serious physical injury [by being struck by a car] since the witnesses assisted the complainant out of the street.

However, the Appellate Division reversed, reinstating the indictment. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division’s statement that "it did not matter that bystanders quickly rendered the assistance the defendants had failed to provide, since

‘[t]he statutory risk was present the moment the victim lay unconscious on the pavement as a result of the defendants’ actions.’" (emphasis supplied) 84 NY2d at 163.

The Galatro court then cited its decision in People v Davis, 72 NY2d 32, 36, 530 NYS2d 529, noting that "the reckless endangerment statutes ‘seek to prevent the risk created by the actor’s conduct, not a particular outcome,’ and the risk of injury alone will sustain prosecution." 84 NY2d at 164.

Many appellate courts have applied the same analysis to depraved mind assault. They examine the defendant’s conduct and the circumstances to reach a conclusion whether the assault was merely reckless or properly aggravated to "depraved mind." Cases in which the more serious depraved indifference assault has been upheld often involve helpless victims, usually infants or the elderly.

Assault 1st Degree and Reckless Endangerment 1st Degree convictions were upheld in People v Cotton, 214 AD2d 994, 627 NYS2d 192 (4th Dept 1995) The defendant repeatedly forced the head of his sixteen day old son into the cushions of a couch and flipped the infant over by his leg, causing a spiral fracture of the tibia. The Fourth Department agreed with the jury that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant’s conduct created a grave risk of death to the infant and caused the child serious physical injury. Id. at 995.

In People v Nix, 173 AD2d 285, 569 NYS2d 677 (1st Dept 1991), evidence was found sufficient to establish that the defendant acted with depraved indifference to human life in a "shaken baby syndrome" Assault 1st Degree case. In Nix, the defendant recklessly shook his three and a half month old son on more than one occasion causing severe injuries to the baby. The expert testimony also established that the baby’s injuries were not accidental, but "could only have been caused by a violent shaking of the child."

Similarly, in People v Pope, 241 AD2d 756, 660 NYS2d 466 (3rd Dept 1997), "the evidence amply suggests a conclusion that the child died as a result of defendant’s brutality and not an accident." His conviction for Murder 2nd Degree was upheld.

The Second Department rejected the defendant’s claim of legally insufficient evidence for depraved indifference assault in People v Paul, 209 AD2d 447, 618 NYS2d 456 (2nd Dept. 1994). The evidence showed that the defendant "on four occasions within 24 hours, either dropped his four-day-old daughter, or tripped with her, causing her to hit her head and suffer permanent serious injuries."

In People v Williams, 191 AD2d 234, 594 NYS2d 252 (1st Dept 1993), defendant’s conviction for Reckless Endangerment 1st Degree after a jury trial, was upheld. This case exemplifies the crux of "depraved indifference", being the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting. The defendant repeatedly hit the victim with a baseball bat in the head, arms and legs while another person held the victim. The First Department held that "the fact that the complainant was not grievously injured is not controlling since "The risk of injury alone sustains prosecution [under Penal Law 125.25]." (citing People v Davis, 72 NY2d 32, 35-36).

Assault 1st Degree under the depraved indifference theory was upheld in People v Jones, 236 AD2d 217, 653 NYS2d 323 (1st Dept 1997), where the defendant shook her 23-day-old infant "so vigorously that his head snapped forward and back, she lost her grip and forcibly propelled the infant to the floor six feet away."

The Third Department upheld an Assault 1st Degree conviction in People v Wieber, 202 AD2d 789, 609 NYS2d 398 (3rd Dept 1994), where the defendant recklessly propelled an 85 year old man forward, striking a door and the floor. "His body was bruised on the arms, feet, legs, and upper chest, and he had broken ribs." 202 AD2d at 789. This Court found that

Considering [the victim’s] age, his frailty, that he was in poor health, submissive and without resistance, and the evidence of injuries to his chest area including his ribs, legs and foot, the use of such force and pressure in gripping [the victim] and in propelling him against the door could be found to be evidence that defendant recklessly engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death to another under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life (Penal law 120.10[3]).

In People v Murphy, 235 AD2d 933, 654 NYS2d 187 (3rd Dept 1997), relied upon by the Court below, the Third Department upheld the defendant’s convictions for two counts of the intentional crime of Attempted Murder 2nd Degree, but reversed convictions for depraved indifference assault of the same two victims. 654 NYS2d at 191.

Since the facts showed that the defendant intentionally struck each victim in the head two or three times with a hammer, the case is qualitatively different from the other cases cited above in which depraved indifference assault was upheld. Those cases where not charged alternatively as intentional assaults. The Court in Murphy did not discuss the possible contradiction between finding the defendant guilty of both intentional (attempted murder) and reckless depraved (assault 1st) crimes for the same conduct.

Failure to provide adequate medical care.

The courts have recognized that the failure to provide adequate medical care, by a person who has a duty to provide it, is a separate and distinct basis for a depraved mind murder or assault. In People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 680, 584 NYS2d 770 (1992), the Court of Appeals addressed acts of omission as the basis for criminal liability:

The Penal Law provides that criminal liability may be based on an omission (see, Penal Law 15.05), which is defined as the failure to perform a legally imposed duty (Penal Law 15.00[3]). Parents have a nondelegable affirmative duty to provide their children with adequate medical care (Matter of Hofbauer, 47 NY2d 648, 654-55; Family Ct Act 1012[f][A]). Thus, a parent’s failure to fulfill that duty can form the basis of a homicide charge (see, People v Flayhart, 72 NYS2d 737; People v Henson, 33 NY2d 63).

The duty to aid is imposed even on a non-parent who is aware that a victim was seriously injured. See People v Knapp, 113 AD2d 154, 495 NYS2d 985 (3rd Dept 1985), US cert denied 479 US 844.

A defendant who brutally beat a woman, causing injuries to her face and abdomen, then did not come to her assistance, instead leaving her on the floor in a pool of blood while he watched television, "could be found by the jury to go beyond the level of recklessness and to evince a wanton indifference to human life." People v Gaudet, 115 AD2d 183, 495 NYS2d 253 (3rd Dept 1985).

Prepared in September 1999

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How's about we turn the question around and ask why have specific laws related to terrorist offences?

What is the need for that?

[GaryC 7]

I dunno Gary - there's been several pages explaining the difference.

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

I already pointed out to you that simple example about cross burning. What might seem to be a nuisance crime on a superficial level really being intended to specifically intimidate people, which is surely a far worse crime. Not hard to understand IMO.

No really, I don't understand. The example of the cross burning isn't very clear. We already have a civil rights law that covers that. Why is it necessary to add to the civil rights violation a hate crime violation? And please explain to me how an assault is worse because the criminal did it because of a hatred of a gay person rather than an assault because he wanted his wallet. I really want to understand.

As I said:

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

Again - I'm a little perplexed as to how this ties in with your ideas on minimum sentencing. Unless I'm greatly misunderstanding - it seems to me that you're suggesting that everyone receives the same punishment for a crime regardless of why they did it.

This is nothing new - so I'm not sure why you are so opposed to another legal stipulation that defines the specific nature of a specific crime. Here's one example:

First of all I was advocating minimum sentencing in regard to sex crimes against children alone and not for every crime.

I understand the varying degrees of murder and why intent makes a difference there. But I am asking specifically about hate crimes. So I will ask again, what difference does it make if I assault someone while I am stealing his wallet or if I assault someone because I don't like gays? We have statutes regarding civil right violations already, why add another layer to it?

[GaryC 7]

How's about we turn the question around and ask why have specific laws related to terrorist offences?

What is the need for that?

As long as the crime is covered under existing laws then we don't need new laws for terrorists. Things like giving aid to terrorists were not covered before and that particular law was passed to include that. To me bombing a shopping mall is covered under murder and the various other crimes that were committed. Adding more laws is counterproductive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I dunno Gary - there's been several pages explaining the difference.

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

I already pointed out to you that simple example about cross burning. What might seem to be a nuisance crime on a superficial level really being intended to specifically intimidate people, which is surely a far worse crime. Not hard to understand IMO.

No really, I don't understand. The example of the cross burning isn't very clear. We already have a civil rights law that covers that. Why is it necessary to add to the civil rights violation a hate crime violation? And please explain to me how an assault is worse because the criminal did it because of a hatred of a gay person rather than an assault because he wanted his wallet. I really want to understand.

As I said:

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

Again - I'm a little perplexed as to how this ties in with your ideas on minimum sentencing. Unless I'm greatly misunderstanding - it seems to me that you're suggesting that everyone receives the same punishment for a crime regardless of why they did it.

This is nothing new - so I'm not sure why you are so opposed to another legal stipulation that defines the specific nature of a specific crime. Here's one example:

First of all I was advocating minimum sentencing in regard to sex crimes against children alone and not for every crime.

I understand the varying degrees of murder and why intent makes a difference there. But I am asking specifically about hate crimes. So I will ask again, what difference does it make if I assault someone while I am stealing his wallet or if I assault someone because I don't like gays? We have statutes regarding civil right violations already, why add another layer to it?

Malicious Intent because you are targetting the person for ethnic or other orientation reasons. As for the varying degrees of murder - well if you establish a malicious intent to specifically harm a person, and this is essentially your motive for committing the crime - seems to me its less defensible. Of course the onus is always on the court to prove the persons specific intent.

I'm still curious about your stance on a specific legal delineation for terrorism offences. In a sense - hate crimes are not far remove from terrorism. In a technical sense at least...

[GaryC 7]

I dunno Gary - there's been several pages explaining the difference.

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

I already pointed out to you that simple example about cross burning. What might seem to be a nuisance crime on a superficial level really being intended to specifically intimidate people, which is surely a far worse crime. Not hard to understand IMO.

No really, I don't understand. The example of the cross burning isn't very clear. We already have a civil rights law that covers that. Why is it necessary to add to the civil rights violation a hate crime violation? And please explain to me how an assault is worse because the criminal did it because of a hatred of a gay person rather than an assault because he wanted his wallet. I really want to understand.

As I said:

Why have different degrees of murder, different attachments to it (like Depraved Indifference) to highlight the specific (unique) nature of that particular crime?

Again - I'm a little perplexed as to how this ties in with your ideas on minimum sentencing. Unless I'm greatly misunderstanding - it seems to me that you're suggesting that everyone receives the same punishment for a crime regardless of why they did it.

This is nothing new - so I'm not sure why you are so opposed to another legal stipulation that defines the specific nature of a specific crime. Here's one example:

First of all I was advocating minimum sentencing in regard to sex crimes against children alone and not for every crime.

I understand the varying degrees of murder and why intent makes a difference there. But I am asking specifically about hate crimes. So I will ask again, what difference does it make if I assault someone while I am stealing his wallet or if I assault someone because I don't like gays? We have statutes regarding civil right violations already, why add another layer to it?

Malicious Intent because you are targetting the person for ethnic or other orientation reasons. As for the varying degrees of murder - well if you establish a malicious intent to specifically harm a person, and this is essentially your motive for committing the crime - seems to me its less defensible. Of course the onus is always on the court to prove the persons specific intent.

I'm still curious about your stance on a specific legal delineation for terrorism offences. In a sense - hate crimes are not far remove from terrorism. In a technical sense at least...

Hmmm.... I think I see now. The hate crime laws are just a way to pander to the gay community. They have no real use in punishing a criminal.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's New York state's rationale:

§ 485.00 Legislative findings.

The legislature finds and determines as follows: criminal acts involv-

ing violence, intimidation and destruction of property based upon bias

and prejudice have become more prevalent in New York state in recent

years. The intolerable truth is that in these crimes, commonly and

justly referred to as "hate crimes", victims are intentionally selected,

in whole or in part, because of their race, color, national origin,

ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexu-

al orientation. Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and

welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical

and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society.

Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only

harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and

discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and

vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes.

In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the

beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on

account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to

public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore,

our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravi-

ty of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their

recurrence.

Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes

should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity.

§ 485.05 Hate crimes.

On sentencing.

§ 485.10 Sentencing.

1. When a person is convicted of a hate crime pursuant to this arti-

cle, and the specified offense is a violent felony offense, as defined

in section 70.02 of this chapter, the hate crime shall be deemed a

violent felony offense.

2. When a person is convicted of a hate crime pursuant to this article

and the specified offense is a misdemeanor or a class C, D or E felony,

the hate crime shall be deemed to be one category higher than the speci-

fied offense the defendant committed, or one category higher than the

offense level applicable to the defendant's conviction for an attempt or

conspiracy to commit a specified offense, whichever is applicable.

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a person is

convicted of a hate crime pursuant to this article and the specified

offense is a class B felony:

(a) the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence must be at least

six years if the defendant is sentenced pursuant to section 70.00 of

this chapter;

(B) the term of the determinate sentence must be at least eight years

if the defendant is sentenced pursuant to section 70.02 of this chapter;

© the term of the determinate sentence must be at least twelve years

if the defendant is sentenced pursuant to section 70.04 of this chapter;

(d) the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence must be at least

four years if the defendant is sentenced pursuant to section 70.05 of

this chapter; and

(e) the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence or the term of the

determinate sentence must be at least ten years if the defendant is

sentenced pursuant to section 70.06 of this chapter.

4. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a person is

convicted of a hate crime pursuant to this article and the specified

offense is a class A-1 felony, the minimum period of the indeterminate

sentence shall be not less than twenty years.

If the criminal gets a greater sentence because of the specifically malicious nature of their crime, I'd say that is 'punishing' the criminal...

Edited September 5, 2007 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

So we are punishing "thought crimes" now?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So we are punishing "thought crimes" now?

I believe the law is punishing people in terms of physcal crimes they have actually committed.

Unless you consider motive and intent to be generally invalid considerations in determining appropriate sentencing.

[GaryC 7]

So we are punishing "thought crimes" now?

I believe the law is punishing people in terms of physcal crimes they have actually committed.

Unless you consider motive and intent to be generally invalid considerations in determining appropriate sentencing.

I do. Assault is assault. I don't see the need to try and get into the mind of a criminal when trying a criminal. That opens up a real can of worms IMO. What happens if someone commits a crime against a gay and is prosecuted for a hate crime when in reality his motivation was just monetary gain? The person would then be a victim of a miscarriage of justice in the name of PC.

[no name 1]

So we are punishing "thought crimes" now?

I believe the law is punishing people in terms of physcal crimes they have actually committed.

Unless you consider motive and intent to be generally invalid considerations in determining appropriate sentencing.

I do. Assault is assault. I don't see the need to try and get into the mind of a criminal when trying a criminal. That opens up a real can of worms IMO. What happens if someone commits a crime against a gay and is prosecuted for a hate crime when in reality his motivation was just monetary gain? The person would then be a victim of a miscarriage of justice in the name of PC.

Gary, you act as those anyone can get a hate crime offense slapped on them. They can't. It has to be proven. Just as it's innocent until proven guilty?

And stop saying it's just for gays - it is also religious groups, skin color & other areas as well (see my previous post).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So we are punishing "thought crimes" now?

I believe the law is punishing people in terms of physcal crimes they have actually committed.

Unless you consider motive and intent to be generally invalid considerations in determining appropriate sentencing.

I do. Assault is assault. I don't see the need to try and get into the mind of a criminal when trying a criminal. That opens up a real can of worms IMO. What happens if someone commits a crime against a gay and is prosecuted for a hate crime when in reality his motivation was just monetary gain? The person would then be a victim of a miscarriage of justice in the name of PC.

The problem is - if you don't consider 'intent' to begin with, how do you know what article of law a person should be charged under?

Abuses could certainly happen, but then again they already do. Given the way that district attorneys prosecute cases - the teenage son of a friend of mine was charged with rape, which was a long, long ways away from what he'd actually done. The legal system already facilitates trumped up charges.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Number 6

[mawilson 2,133]

The irony is that on the Dem side, among the three front runners, the worst candidate has the highest poll numbers and the only one who can actually win has the lowest.

Light is dark, dark is light. Everything is upside down. Oh did I mention the GOP front runner is both pro gay rights and abortion? Geez.

So true

[mawilson 2,133]

You got friends in the Pentagon?

Is that unheard of? Damn, you're such a ######.