General > General Technical Chat
Amazon accuses customer of racism & shuts down their smart home!
PlainName:
Scottish law is as foreign as US law as far as we're concerned :)
TimFox:
Even so, one must remember that legal terms in English-speaking countries are made of English, French, and Latin words, but have precise definitions in law that may differ from common usage.
Another example is "malice aforethought", which is archaic English for the mens rea required for first-degree murder (as opposed to other forms of illegal homicide).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/malice_aforethought
There was a US case in 1989 where a mistrial resulted from a juror bringing a standard dictionary to the jury room during deliberations, to look up the definition of "malice" that should have been referred to the presiding trial judge.
https://www.deseret.com/1989/7/2/18813788/judge-rules-mistrial-after-jurors-use-a-dictionary
PlainName:
I'm afraid you've lost me as to how that's relevant, other than that I used 'malicious' in the normal English language meaning to describe a frame of mind. I didn't use it as a legal definition, merely to separate being deliberately (English meaning, not legal, thanks) nasty from unwitting, humorous or other reasonably innocuous actions.
TimFox:
I was responding to your comment above: "A hate crime is basically someone being malicious, but how do you outlaw that?"
In English and American law, intent is a relevant parameter.
Hate itself is not criminalized, but used as an aggravating factor for a real crime (assault, etc.).
PlainName:
OK. I think it's still not relevant because it doesn't answer the question of how you do outlaw hate without a separate crime to hang it on. If you're committed some crime then showing you were malicious is already most of the way there, simply because you were being naughty.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version