Because a crime is by definition....

Discussion in 'Off-topic Political' started by rankhornjp, Oct 14, 2010.

  1. rankhornjp

    rankhornjp Active Member

    4,543
    4
    36
    Emphasis mine*
    Quote from a case I'm reading (BRADLEY v. STATE (2001)) they quoted the above quote from Simpson v State (1994). Link to Bradley: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of- ... note_ref_6 Couldn't find Simpson online anywhere.

    Thoughts?




    if you want to try to look up Simpson: Simpson v. State, 214 Ga.App. 587, 588(2), 448 S.E.2d 370 (1994).
     
  2. rankhornjp

    rankhornjp Active Member

    4,543
    4
    36
    Ok so ~30 views, no comments. Let me ask a more specific question.

    For the first part: "Because a crime is by definition a public wrong against the State". If I steal your TV, how have I "wronged" the State?

    For the second part: "it is not usually an acceptable defense that the person wronged by a criminal has condoned the offense" If me and you beat up my TV, can you still be charged with destruction of property?

    Thirdly how does it go from "public wrong against the State" to "the person wronged"? Don't those contradict each other?
     

  3. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,331
    612
    113
    Usually, if you give somebody permission to do something, it's not a crime at all!
    You can destroy your own TV. You can let somebody else do it.
    That is, as long as it is only your TV, not jointly owned, and not being used as collateral for a loan, and not covered by an insurance policy.
    It is a crime in Georgia to destroy insured property without permission of the insurer.

    But some bad acts are important enough (anti-social enough) that we want to be able to prosecute them even if the "victim" is indifferent, or is buddies with the offender and wants to drop the charges.

    Example: Two brothers having a knock-down drag-out fight in a public place. They're brothers-- neither one wants to press charges on the other. But they still committed the crime of assault and battery, public disturbance, disorderly conduct, etc. The whole community's morals were offended by this public display, so the State can prosecute it (assuming they have good witnesses besides the brothers-- don't expect either brother to be a witness in court).
     
  4. smn

    smn Active Member

    4,106
    10
    38
    Simpson v State, 214 Ga. App. 587 - Ga: Court of Appeals 1994
    Ok, the citation comes from Pratt.
    Emphasis mine.

    Seems the highlighted comes from academic sources.
     
  5. rankhornjp

    rankhornjp Active Member

    4,543
    4
    36
    Thanks for finding that. :righton: I got some more reading to do now. :mrgreen:
     
  6. Hack Causality

    Hack Causality New Member

    865
    0
    0
    Am I the only person that finds that nauseating?
     
  7. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,331
    612
    113
    Well, how about in the context of domestic violence?
    Consider a woman who was raised in a violent household, and who watched her father slap her mother around, and who now thinks that's normal and accepts it.
    Now she's an adult and married to an abusive husband who argues with her daily and slaps her across the chops weekly.
    Gives her a black eye or a split lip a few times per year.
    Wifey still loves her man, and accepts that he's just the way God made him, imperfect, but she can put up with it.
    The State finds out and has him arrested and will prosecute him.
    She and Hubby say that such behavior was consensual. They both agreed before they were married that a little physical slapping was OK, and normal for their relationship.

    Should the State get a conviction based on its own laws, even when the "victim" does not consider herself the victim of a crime, and she does not want to prosecute?

    I think so!!

    (P.S. Naturally Wifey has a privilege not to testify against Hubby at his trial. But the State might have evidence of the abuse from other sources that will be strong enough to convict.)
     
  8. rankhornjp

    rankhornjp Active Member

    4,543
    4
    36
    This is why I'm torn on the issue. I feel that if you're OK with it, then that should be fine. However, I know how many victims of DV are brainwashed/conditioned to believe it is OK/normal even when its not.
     
  9. Hack Causality

    Hack Causality New Member

    865
    0
    0
    Fair enough. In any case where one person gives consent to another to break a law that protects the first person, psychoanalyze or perform whatever other procedure is necessary to determine mental competence. If the person is mentally competent, let both of them go. If the person is not, prosecute the second person and put the first person into a mental institution. A person who is incompetent to determine whether she wants someone to hit her is incompetent to pilot a four thousand pound steel box propelled by continuous explosion at seventy miles an hour down a crowded interstate.