|
To my mind a crime should (and "traditional" crimes do) require both intent and conduct. It is true that conduct could comprise simply advanced planning (as in conspiracy) or unsuccessful attempts (attempted murder, a lesser crime than murder which requires an assault) but that hardly contradicts the principle. If there is an action, but no intent, as in causing injury through negligence, the recourse is civil, for compensation. If there is intent but no action, traditionally, there is no crime. However, such liberal, individualist principles of justice are way out of style in our modern age anyway. I always wonder how the state responds if you employ someone at below the minimum award? Is there a criminal penalty, or a quasi-penal sanction? It never ceases to amaze me how supposedly rational, reasonable and "libertarian" (well, they're on this forum, aren't they?) individuals can forget their basic principles simply because they are appalled by the hypothetical "grooming" of a fictitious young girl for sex which had zero possibility of ever actually happening! Such things one would normally associate with the baying of a hysterical mob comprised of the unsophisticated and ill-educated. Or Fascists, of course. Adam
| 
