>>>>>>>>>>>>1) Governor Brown signed into law the "Dream Act", which allows Illegals to obtain state funding for college
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>2) Governor Brown signed a ban on open carry of firearms into law on Monday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>So let's see if I have this right....
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Criminals can come to the U.S. and get PAID to go to college, but I cannot carry a firearm to defend myself against them??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>1) they are not criminals before they come to the US, unless proven to be. It's your duty, as a defender of democracy, to know about presumption of innocence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>They are as soon as they enter the US *ILLEGALLY*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do you really think a 4-year-old brought in by his parents is a criminal?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes. If the 4 year old was not born in the U.S., and came/was brought to the U.S. without proper documentation, then he/she is an illegal, and by definition, a criminal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm pretty sure that, in order to commit a crime, you have to be able to form intent. The 4-year-old doesn't have the intent; he's simply along for the ride.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vehicular manslaughter v. vehicular homicide. The intent to kill is missing in the former.
>>>>>
>>>>>From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Specific+Intent:
>>>>>
>>>>>"The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to designate a special state of mind that is required, along with a physical act, to constitute certain crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually interpreted to mean intentionally or knowingly. Common-law Larceny, for example, requires both the physical act of taking and carrying away the property of another and the mental element of intent to steal the property. Similarly, common-law Burglary requires breaking and entering into the dwelling of another with an intent to commit a felony therein. These crimes and others that require a specific-intent element are called specific-intent crimes and are distinguished from general-intent crimes. General-intent crimes require only a showing that the defendant intended to do the act prohibited by law, not that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred."
>>>>>
>>>>>So I think the 4-year-old wouldn't be able to commit a crime because she wouldn't be able to form the intent to do something that was prohibited by law.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tamar
>>>>
>>>>To be clear, I was not responding to the specific example of the 4 year old, rather to your general assertion "I'm pretty sure that, in order to commit a crime, you have to be able to form intent." Unless "with the intent to" or similar is contained in the particular statute then intent is not required.
>>>
>>>The definition above seems to indicate that intent is required, whether specifically stated or not. It doesn't have to be the intent to break the law, but the intent to do whatever the act was that did break the law. (IOW, ignorance of the law is no excuse.)
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>General-intent crimes require only a showing that the defendant intended to do the act prohibited by law, not that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred.
>>
>>The above are the legal terms regarding intent. But as you used it : "you have to be able to form intent", intent is not always required. Again, I cite vehicular manslaughter v. vehicilar homicide. The specific difference is in the intent.
>>
>>Here's an article from 2004 about the undercutting of intent requirement in white collar crime.
>>http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,132279,00.html
>
>I think you highlighted the exact wrong part of the quote. For this question, the issue is the first part:
>
>i>General-intent crimes require only a showing that the defendant intended to do the act prohibited by law, not that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred.
>>
>
>I don't think a 4-year-old can form the necessary intent to cross a national border illegally.

Again, I was not responding to the specific example of the 4 year old, rather to your general assertion "I'm pretty sure that, in order to commit a crime, you have to be able to form intent." As the article I cited points out, intent is being removed as a prosecutorial requirement.

For the record, I agree that the 4-year old cannot form the intent and that intent should remain as a requirement for criminal prosecution as it's essential to our liberty. However, we do not live in "should"-land. The reality of the present criminal code is that intent is not required for all crimes.

>Tamar