Was a crime committed?
Someone I know was told to show up for grand jury service tomorrow morning. So this seems like a good time for a link-heavy refresher on what is and isn't a crime.
No victim; no crime.
Unless there is a "somebody" who can be pointed to (or specifically named) who had their life, liberty, or property harmed, there is no crime. There is nothing to take to court regardless of the legislation alleged to have been violated, and no matter how much evidence there may be that the legislation was violated, or how "serious" the employees of the state seem to think the violation to be. Somebody was murdered, somebody was raped, somebody was robbed, somebody was intentionally hurt, somebody was kidnapped, somebody was archated against-- crime. Otherwise, no crime.
With a bit of a qualifier I'll get to momentarily, accidents can't be crimes even if somebody was harmed. There has to be intent for it to be a crime. The courtroom is not the place to decide on restitution for accidental harm done.
However, negligence which accidentally results in harm to somebody might be a crime in some cases, depending on how likely the act was to cause harm and how easily that harm could be foreseen by rational people. Hypothetical example: If I'm shooting at a paper target on the other side of a crowded room at my house and just as I squeeze the trigger someone steps into the bullet's path, I was criminally negligent. Shooting the person might have been an accident, but any reasonable person could have foreseen the result of my action. It would be different if I were shooting at a target outdoors, having made sure of my target and the surroundings, and a time traveler suddenly materialized in my bullet's path. In most cases, it's not that obvious, though. Since this is subjective, tread carefully in this area. It's always more ethical to let the guilty "get away with it" than to punish even one innocent person. And restitution instead of punishment is always the ethical choice, especially in the case of accidents or negligence.
Being offended doesn't qualify as being harmed.
The State isn't a "somebody" and neither is society.
Possession of anything, absent someone besides the someone doing the possessing being specifically harmed by that thing, can never be a crime.
The State's courtrooms are probably not the proper place to seek justice even in cases of actual crimes.
To be better informed, learn from the Fully Informed Jury Association.
And this is why they'll never let me on a jury.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Find me on Patreon
Love it! I will definitely be sharing this little flowchart. Anyone called to jury duty needs to be familiar with it, along with the play "Twelve Angry Men."
It is said that "trials are too important for juries." It's also been said that "a jury consists of twelve persons whose job it is to determine who has the better lawyer." I think anyone with a functioning pair of eyeballs knows that the jury box has been no place for a well-informed citizen for quite some time now.
That being said, I do have a bit of a problem with your assessment of negligence being subjective. I think there are indeed objective standards by which negligence can be measured, such as the lack of a reasonable expectation of a time traveller materialising on your shooting range. "Reasonable expectation" goes right along with "reasonable doubt" in the context of acquittal - which you could argue is subjective, but I would counter that any plausible alternative is cause for reasonable doubt, and it can be determined objectively. Just a little quibble I have, otherwise, I agreed with everything you said.