Re:Making Insider Trading Legal
by hellbanner on Sunday November 01, 2015 @11:27PM
(#10489988)
Is that "Thought Crime"? Criminality dependent on internal mental state!
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Making Insider Trading Legal
by netheril96 on Sunday November 01, 2015 @11:54PM
(#10490061)
Criminality has been dependent on internal mental state since the dawn of time. Like when you kill a person, it ranges from self defense to manslaughter to murder (and maybe terrorism now). That is not what "thought crime" means.
Re:Making Insider Trading Legal
by homonculus1 on Monday November 02, 2015 @12:06AM
(#10490109)
"Thought crime" is a poor description because it is not a thought being punished, but an action. You couldn't be punished just for thinking about stolen goods.
Analyzing intent is important to differentiate between people who have likely already learned from their mistake, and those who are likely to exploit others in the future. Punishment is only necessary in the latter case.
That's actually the only reasonable definition of crime in a perfect world. It's because we don't live in a perfect world that we must focus on acts instead of intentions.
Re:Making Insider Trading Legal
by jeremysmyth on Monday November 02, 2015 @07:08AM
(#10491414)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
It's been an important part of law for a long time, although there's a tendency to explicitly avoid it in legislative efforts in the US since the '60s and the advent of MPC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_Penal_Code)