Mens rea of political leaders (The Fall of 'Challenge'?)

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx 08/17/01 02:50PM >>>
	Did he know to a substantial certainty that people would die if chose
policy A as opposed to policy B?  No.

)))))))))

CB: Isn't the standard that Justice Powell articulated that a person is presumed to know the necessary and foreseeable consequences of their actions ?  That would be an objective standard.  Focussing on what he knew is a subjective standard.



	Under the circumstances, did Hoover's policies reflect a reckless
indifference to human life?  No.  He was consumed with trying to figure out
what to do.

((((((((

CB: Being consumed with trying to figure out what to do would not necessarily mean that he was not reckless. He could still "consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the
material element exists or will result from his conduct. "


	Under the circumstances, did he act negligently and did his negligence
cause people to die?    Very doubtful.  When Franklin D. Roosevelt is
attacking you for deficit spending, Hoover's specific policies at the time
were mainstream and within the range of policies considered acceptable by
reasonable persons.  In any event, showing causation between a Hoover policy
and a death is problematic, to say the least.  There is no such problem with
Lenin and Stalin policies.

((((((((

CB: The legally pertinent fact in the case of Lenin , and perhaps Stalin, is a war and civil war circumstance or context.  Lincoln's policies were a but for cause of many deaths during the Civil War, but the law recognizes that Civil War as having a legally mitigating effect.