Text 9781, 99 rader
Skriven 2008-01-13 01:52:08 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
   Kommentar till text 9770 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Myths
=============
Hello Michiel.

12 Jan 08 12:19, you wrote to me:

 MV> Hello Jeff,


 MV>>> There is no such thing as "physical intent". Intent is in the
 MV>>> mind.

 JS>>      How do you figure?

 MV> very simple: intent is in the mind. I do not know how to say it in
 MV> more simple terms.

     Thought--> Desire--> Intent start in the mind. If that intent becomes
strong enough at some point an action is taken based on that intent. That
action becomes the physical expression of that intent. That physical expression
of intent is what gets one into trouble.


 JS>> If I think about commiting a crime and take some action based on
 JS>> that desire that action is my "physical intent".

 MV> Call it what you like, but the crime itself still exists only in your
 MV> mind.

     Until one takes action. I can think about touching a womens shapely
butt all day, but will only get slaped by her if I actually take action and
touch her.

 JS>> Be it casing a place I intend to burglerize or some other action
 JS>> related to my non-physical intent. The non-physical intent is the
 JS>> desire to preform an act just as an act or action represents the
 JS>> physical intent.

 MV> Word play.

     Isn't that the name of the game? <g>

 JS>> It is usually the physical act that makes others aware of some
 JS>> non-physical intent that someone might have.

 MV> That may be so, and I can see how the actions may even be construed as
 MV> proof of intent, but the crime that the suspect intents to commit
 MV> still only exists in his mind.

    Agreed, until one takes action based on that intent. Inventions start
out in someone's mind as a thought or idea and at some point they often
take physical form. It is the physical form that shows others what the intent
of the invention was.


 MV>>> Or at least stay out of the US. There we agree. Travelling to
 MV>>> the US can get you arrested for what you think.

 MV>>> (Or rather what they think you think).

 JS>>      Not what one thinks as much as what can be shown to prove
 JS>> intent. I don't know of anyone who was arrested or confined for
 JS>> only thinking about something.

 MV> I think the Menno Blom case is a good example. He disembarked from an
 MV> aircraft, went to a motel and met a 50 year old police officer. He was
 MV> arrested for intent to have sex with a minor. The minor did not even
 MV> exist. The alleged crime only existed in the mind.

    Did he not take action based on what his desires were? Did he not send
video's of himself to who he thought was a 14 year old girl? The point is
that he demonstrated to the authorities what he was trying to do and what
his intent was. He could have thought endlessly about that 14 year old and
would still be a free man. It is when that thought became action that he got
himself in trouble.

    There may also be the difference in how the US looks at children and their
exploitation by adults for sex.

    Was Blom guilty of having sex with a 13-14 year old? Or was he guilty of
trying to have or arrange for sex with a 13-14 year old? That which may not
be a crime in one location may very well be a crime in a differant location.

 JS>> If that were the case as you would like to suggest then imagine
 JS>> the multitude of people all over the world that would be jailed
 JS>> for what they were thinking.

 MV> There are plenty of examples for that. In the past and in the present.

     And I would think that in those examples the percieved crime was based
on an action taken and NOT merely for a thought.

 MV> Cheers, Michiel

 MV> --- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 MV>  * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)