LoBagola Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 Does anyone know who developed this as a standard of proof for establishing guilt? I've tried Google searching, but I cannot link those three up to any historical figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I don't think a single person came up with them, it's more a quick summary to get the gist of legal proceedings in crime shows as far as I know. I found a decent source for some facts. It says that Cicero called mens rea (basically motive) an implicit rule of mankind. You probably won't find "the" person, it probably was around long before it was written down. You can look into Roman law if you're interested in where modern principles originate. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2828&context=jclc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) Does anyone know who developed this as a standard of proof for establishing guilt? No one? It's not a standard of proof for establishing guilt, it's just something people say in the movies. I have the means, motive and opportunity to do all kinds of things I choose not to do. Edited October 18, 2014 by Nicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted October 18, 2014 Report Share Posted October 18, 2014 I have the means, motive and opportunity to do all kinds of things I choose not to do. If you choose not to do X, it means you have no motive to do X. The other two don't take your mind into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 If you choose not to do X, it means you have no motive to do X. The other two don't take your mind into account. So this supposed standard of proof is basically a circular argument fallacy? Defendant is guilty because he had motive to commit the crime, and he had motive because he chose to do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) Does anyone know who developed this as a standard of proof for establishing guilt? I've tried Google searching, but I cannot link those three up to any historical figure. I don't think these are the standards for proof. They are simply factors that require explanation. If I hire a killer, then I have only motive. Edited October 19, 2014 by A is A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 I think that the criteria can establish necessary but not sufficient reasons for guilt... softwareNerd 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 I don't believe motive is a necessary condition to establish guilt in a trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 AisA, that seems like a strange statement. Why would motive not be required in establishing guilt? Clearly it doesn't apply to accidents. Your post implies, though, that motive doesn't matter for saying someone is guilty of murder. Do you mean something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Southall Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 I think Euiol makes a good point. Motive establishes an agent would have a plausible reason for taking an action, opportunity establishes the agent would have been free to act on their motivation, and having the means establishes the agent would have been able to carry out the crime. This would certainly be true of the guilty agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oso Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 AisA, that seems like a strange statement. Why would motive not be required in establishing guilt? Clearly it doesn't apply to accidents. Your post implies, though, that motive doesn't matter for saying someone is guilty of murder. Do you mean something else? Clearly there needs to be some motive in order for someone to choose to commit a crime, but it's not necessary to identify that motive in court in order to convict. For example, you might have no idea why a mother killed her child, but if you have physical proof that she did it, it's not necessary to identify the motive in order to convict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 AisA, that seems like a strange statement. Why would motive not be required in establishing guilt? Clearly it doesn't apply to accidents. Your post implies, though, that motive doesn't matter for saying someone is guilty of murder. Do you mean something else? The only thing need to prove guilt is that the person committed the crime. Why he did it is irrelevant for guilt, although knowing motive certainly helps in putting the crime in context. But, unless the defendent himself actually testifies, you'll probably never know his true motive. Jon Southall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 There may be cases where knowing the motive is important, such as in self-defense cases where one person is dead and the other is alive. Jon Southall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 The only thing need to prove guilt is that the person committed the crime. Why he did it is irrelevant for guilt, although knowing motive certainly helps in putting the crime in context. But, unless the defendent himself actually testifies, you'll probably never know his true motive. Doesn't that beg the question? Of course proving guilt only requires knowing the person committed the crime, but how would you know they did! Without a motive, I'm saying you would have reason to say maybe what seems to be the case just isn't so. In terms of law, I'm not sure if a motive must be established, but when it comes to human action, if I am to believe someone is guilty regarding intentional acts, I need a reasonable motive. Otherwise, it's probably only an accident. Jon Southall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 So, if 10 people see you hold a gun on a person, your fingerprints are on the gun, there's a camera overhead that has pictures of you pointing the gun at someone, and you have that person's money in your pocket, it's only an accident? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 And no, it doesn't beg the question. There might be 10 people who have motives to commit the same crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted October 24, 2014 Report Share Posted October 24, 2014 So, if 10 people see you hold a gun on a person, your fingerprints are on the gun, there's a camera overhead that has pictures of you pointing the gun at someone, and you have that person's money in your pocket, it's only an accident? The thing is, if you had all that evidence, it would probably be quite straightforward to establish a motive. If you had all that and can't establish a motive, well, it'd probably not be as clearcut as you'd make it out to be in your hypothetical. We may know that the person did the action, but we wouldn't know exactly how to attribute their level of guilt. If in legal terms I am wrong about this, I'd like some examples of convictions where motive was never determined. Maybe accident isn't the best word choice. Rather, no established motive would indicate that the case is not as obvious as it appears. Jon Southall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 The thing is, if you had all that evidence, it would probably be quite straightforward to establish a motive. If you had all that and can't establish a motive, well, it'd probably not be as clearcut as you'd make it out to be in your hypothetical.But you're accusing him of begging the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 But you're accusing him of begging the question. I still think he is. I just didn't think it was worth my time trying to explain it again. I'd rather unpack the premises than pick on one bad sentence. Jon Southall 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerickAlsept Posted October 31, 2014 Report Share Posted October 31, 2014 AisA, that seems like a strange statement. Why would motive not be required in establishing guilt? Clearly it doesn't apply to accidents. Your post implies, though, that motive doesn't matter for saying someone is guilty of murder. Do you mean something else? Since motive is requisite for proof of guilt, it stands to reason that someone who breaks an objective law without motive (or by accident) is criminally not-guilty. However being not-guilty of a crime does not eliminate responsibility for the consequences of the action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.