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

["David Shemano" <dshemano@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In reply to Charles:

<<<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.>>>

In fact, "reckless" is a subjective standard, while "negligent" is an
objective standard.  Look at the Model Penal Code definition -- reckless
requires "conscious disregard," while negligence requires deviation from the
reasonable person standard.


<<<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. ">>>

For purposes of murder, reckless requires a conscious disregard that
manifests an indifference to the value of human life.  Hoover may have been
wrong, he may have been stupid, he may have been incompetent, but I doubt
very heavily that Hoover ever for a moment thought that choosing policy A as
opposed to policy B would result in a death, and then chose policy A.

<<<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.>>>

This is only half true.  Yes, war was Lenin's justification and war
justifies many things.  But just because you are in an out of the ordinary
context, does not mean that everyting you do is necessarily justified.  I
mean, if my wife is about to give birth, I might be justified in speeding,
but I am not justified in blindly running red lights and going the wrong way
on one way streets.

David Shemano