Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

means, motive, opportunity as standard of proof

Rate this topic


LoBagola

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by A is A
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...