Thread: Comey Statement: Will it result in changing the U.S. legal system?

My hope is that we can leave politics out of this thread. I listened to FBI Director Comey's statement on the Clinton email findings (again, don't weigh in on this thread as to whether you support or are against his statement) and wondered the following:

My take away from his statement was that while Clinton was careless in breaching security measures, and did breach security measures her intent was not to breach any security measures and therefore he does not recommend any criminal prosecution.

That part is fascinating to me and I wonder if it may change the face of justice and the legal system in the U.S.?

Here's are examples of what I mean:

Drunk driver is caught recklessly driving; caught because he injured or killed someone. He's proven to have been drunk and driving recklessly, not open for debate. However, what if he in no way intended on injuring or killing another party by his actions? Is a committed illegal act grounds for prosecution or does prosecution hinge on whether the person intended on committing an illegal act? No intent to injure or kill from driving drunk....no prosecution?

If a person exceeds the speed limit in an area they're not familiar with (no intent to speed since they didn't know the speed limit), no ticket?

A person does not properly store pollutants as required and they end up leaking into the ground or water table. The person did not intend for that to happen. No fine?

I actually think the legal system would be more streamlined and much more basic if prosecution was only possible if a person's intent could be proven, but I don't think up until now that it works that way?

In its simplest form, Comey from what I gather was saying this: Clinton broke the law but did not INTEND to break the law so....no prosecution. Could that be the new legal standard? Could this not be used as precedence in future cases on all levels?

I think it's possible to have an exchange in this thread by sticking to legal aspect of this in general terms rather than make this thread about Clinton.

Chris L

Short answer: No. It will not change the legal system.

It depends on the statutory requirements, this link may be helpful. These are the mens rea (basically the mental state) requirements of an individual for different types and levels of crimes from the Model Penal Code( or MPC). The MPC is like a helpful template for legislatures to use in crafting their criminal codes.

Model Penal Code’s Mens Rea

It definitely will not change anything in regards to the average joe. I like the disclaimer you have provided, as I usually dislike political discussions.

Drunk driver will be prosecuted unless they can prove some unforseen health issue caused them to get drunk unintentionally. This would be difficult to defend if said driver killed people in the process. This kinda revolves back to the impact of the situation, the government keeps a lot of secrets and I'm sure at least a few no one would care if it was common knowledge.

Depends on the cop and how he feels that day, as well as more specific circumstances. I was ticketed for speeding ~7-8 times, of course all the times I was just driving, no funny stuff. If you're lost and confused, they'll probably help but will probably give you a ticket anyways. Unless you're in a particularly rough neighborhood, they can tell if you're from the outside and let your speed the heck out of there.

The DNR, EPA and OSHA would probably all be involved depending on the situation. Any chemical in a company should have an MSDS sheet, so lack of knowledge is not a sufficient excuse. Although it's also an issue of the actual impact of the chemical and the quantities.

Intent is a funny thing, it's just what's in someone's mind, sometimes it is obvious and others it is not.

For those that aren't the average joe, the legal system has always been more lenient except in the more heinous crimes. However, I think the people involved were just being dumb. A security clearance only really guarantees the fact that someone can be trustworthy and keep a secret. Not to mention that when people are stressed, they tend not to think clearly either. I have not read any emails or have knowledge of what "secrets" were in there, but chances are that they were of 'minimal impact' and the nameless people's heads have rolled already.

Nope, the law has nothing to do with it.

It is just an excuse, to bar prosecution. They got to him. Sad, that he flushed a Steller career and reputation.

No-one believes it was hinged on a point of law. This is third world country stuff…

I understand your question and. I do not think this will change the legal system in any way for the average citizen.

I also think this is a very dangerous precedent the FBI just set with their finding and are just passing the buck on up the line for an actual determination of guilt.

I don't think it will change how things are prosecuted as the "intent" is already baked into many of our laws already.

As an example, the EPA has different tiers of fine/punishments for various infractions (paperwork, deadlines, spills). There are clear guidelines set for what the "intent" was for the offending party.

The only grey area is the person(s) / agency doing the investigation. Every investigator is going to have a certain amount of bias based on past experience or pressure from external sources.

I doubt it would change the legal system in the US. An accused person has to be shown to have deliberately set out to do the crime they are accused of and have the mental capability to understand right from wrong at the time the crime they are accused of was committed. Like Joel said Mens Rea. If both can't be fully proven you have no case.

In the case of a drunk driver killing someone most people do not set out to get drunk in order to kill someone and while drunk you have a diminished mental capacity to fully understand right from wrong. They are not usually charged with murder.

If you think Comey was passing the buck or had been "gotten to" is a different discussion altogether from my pov.

Bob

When it comes to security items that's a entirely different thing than typical criminal cases. To prosecute her it's not just intent but the type of items and if it affected national security and to what degree. Having worked in Govt and having had a security clearance I can tell you that violations occur all the time and for typical cases it's handled administratively meaning the person's security clearance is revoked which means termination if it's permanent. Unfortunately in this case politics is getting in the way.

A case like Petraeus is different because he knowingly gave away security items and that's serious stuff.

Life gets complicated if you have a security clearance above "Rumour".

Bob

Life is not black and white, and there is a range of options not only for different circumstances but even for the same circumstances.

People with means and resources most of the time get more favorable terms. And when they don't they will be perceived as getting it.