[Florida] Change in Florida drug law under legal fire

[Disputatious71]

Change in Florida drug law under legal fire

Scriven tossed the conviction and 18-year sentence of Mackle Shelton for delivery of cocaine. She criticized Florida's elimination of the knowledge requirement, saying, Florida's drug law "is unconstitutional on its face."


The dispute revolves around a legal term, "mens rea," which refers to a "guilty mind." Florida is the only state which does not require a person to know they had the illegal substances to be found guilty, the federal judge explained. "Not surprisingly, Florida stands alone in its express elimination of mens rea as an element of a drug offense," Scriven wrote. "Other states have rejected such a draconian and unreasonable construction of the law that would criminalize the 'unknowing' possession of a controlled substance."

I am wondering why this took so long (2002) law to be challenged, to be charged with a crime when one had no knowledge or provable intent to commit appears to me to be a gross violation of ones rights.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Well that's stupid.

If I can get in trouble for buying (like on ebay) an item that was stollen - then someone who claims "quote" "unquote" that they didn't know a bag of powder was some cocaine should be found liable as well.

And what about being an "accessory" - people all the time get in trouble because of items near or on their person when they're pulled over at a traffic light - even if it really does belong to someone else.

Claiming ignorance has never really been an excuse - so why does it matter per this issue?

 

[Disputatious71]

Well that's stupid.

If I can get in trouble for buying (like on ebay) an item that was stollen - then someone who claims "quote" "unquote" that they didn't know a bag of powder was some cocaine should be found liable as well.

And what about being an "accessory" - people all the time get in trouble because of items near or on their person when they're pulled over at a traffic light - even if it really does belong to someone else.

Claiming ignorance has never really been an excuse - so why does it matter per this issue?

While your statement makes sense, it still fails to address the FACT that no matter what the crime, criminal intent should be proved in court and not tossed away as being irrelevant. Such callous disregard for mens rea leads to tyranny where anyone can be charged with a crime for just being near the act or in proximity to illegal contraband.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

While your statement makes sense, it still fails to address the FACT that no matter what the crime, criminal intent should be proved in court and not tossed away as being irrelevant. Such callous disregard for mens rea leads to tyranny where anyone can be charged with a crime for just being near the act or in proximity to illegal contraband.

So you feel that being an accessory via contact and theft without knowledge is also wrong?

 

[Disputatious71]

So you feel that being an accessory via contact and theft without knowledge is also wrong?

I am sorry but your question is rather vague, can you be more specific about the type of contact and what knowledge ?
Your question and my inquiry is exactly the type of investigation that should be conducted by police and proved by prosecutors in court, which is the whole point of mens rea and the reason it fights tyranny and prevents police states ! Thank you for helping me make my point with your attempted question :2wave:

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I am sorry but your question is rather vague, can you be more specific about the type of contact and what knowledge ?
Your question and my inquiry is exactly the type of investigation that should be conducted by police and proved by prosecutors in court, which is the whole point of mens rea and the reason it fights tyranny and prevents police states ! Thank you for helping me make my point with your attempted question :2wave:

that was in RE to my first post. Someone right now - in most states - can get in trouble for being an 'accessory' for theft and drug possession even if they didn't know the item was stolen - or didn't know that their friend slipped a joint in their backpack.

So - if you feel that criminal intent should always matter - and ignorance of the fact is not a crime - then do you believe that being an 'accessory' (RE my first post examples) should also be reconsidered?

I don't feel any of this should be reconsidered - anyone can claim they didn't "know" anything - doesn't mean they're being truthful.

 

[Disputatious71]

that was in RE to my first post. Someone right now - in most states - can get in trouble for being an 'accessory' for theft and drug possession even if they didn't know the item was stolen - or didn't know that their friend slipped a joint in their backpack.

So - if you feel that criminal intent should always matter - and ignorance of the fact is not a crime - then do you believe that being an 'accessory' (RE my first post examples) should also be reconsidered?

I don't feel any of this should be reconsidered - anyone can claim they didn't "know" anything - doesn't mean they're being truthful.

Correct as anyone can claim they didn't "know" anything - doesn't mean they're being truthful - but it does mean it should be DISPROVED in court!

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Correct as anyone can claim they didn't "know" anything - doesn't mean they're being truthful - but it does mean it should be DISPROVED in court!

Proving and Disproving someone's *knowledge* is such a fickle issues - why do you think it's remotely possible?

To me that just lets numerous guilty people walk right out the courtroom door.

I think having an illegal substance in your abode or on your person is plenty of evidence - rather than this extra 'in your mind' branch - we can't read people's thoughts, any of that is purely subjective.

 

[lpast]

How do you have drugs in your posession and not know it....someone stuck coke in your pocket ?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

How do you have drugs in your posession and not know it....someone stuck coke in your pocket ?

yeah really. . . the most common story I've heard is "it was under my seat in the car but I didn't put it there" when someone's pulled over.

 

[lpast]

yeah really. . . the most common story I've heard is "it was under my seat in the car but I didn't put it there" when someone's pulled over.

Ive heard every excuse and reason created for why I have drugs on me....police officers arent interested in the BS...you have drugs on ya...oh well.

 

[Tigger]

While your statement makes sense, it still fails to address the FACT that no matter what the crime, criminal intent should be proved in court and not tossed away as being irrelevant. Such callous disregard for mens rea leads to tyranny where anyone can be charged with a crime for just being near the act or in proximity to illegal contraband.

I disagree. In my mind it is the responsibility of an individual to know what is in their apartment, car, pockets, etc... It is also their responsibility to know who it is they are hanging out with. If you're stupid enough to hang around with people you don't know, or allow things you are unsure of the composition of into your home, car, etc... then you get what you deserve.

 

[Disputatious71]

Proving and Disproving someone's *knowledge* is such a fickle issues - why do you think it's remotely possible?

To me that just lets numerous guilty people walk right out the courtroom door.

I think having an illegal substance in your abode or on your person is plenty of evidence - rather than this extra 'in your mind' branch - we can't read people's thoughts, any of that is purely subjective.

So you like the guilty until proven innocent tyranny instead of the innocent until proven guilty laws?

 

[Disputatious71]

Ive heard every excuse and reason created for why I have drugs on me....police officers arent interested in the BS...you have drugs on ya...oh well.

The arrest is not the same thing as proving mens rea in court, when you get into court it SHOULD be the job of the prosecution to prove intent during the trial and NOT the responsibility of the defendant to prove innocence!

 

[lpast]

The arrest is not the same thing as proving mens rea in court, when you get into court it SHOULD be the job of the prosecution to prove intent during the trial and NOT the responsibility of the defendant to prove innocence!

I agree...but how does the prosecution prove that you Knew you had drugs in your pocket....its their pocket right ? lol...I mean cmon man...you have drugs on your person...thats proof...if theres a reason you had drugs on you unknowingly then its the defense that needs to bring out that doubt...

 

[Disputatious71]

I agree...but how does the prosecution prove that you Knew you had drugs in your pocket....its their pocket right ? lol...I mean cmon man...you have drugs on your person...thats proof...if theres a reason you had drugs on you unknowingly then its the defense that needs to bring out that doubt...

The case in the article DOES not involve the pockets of the person accused. Now if you wish to keep changing the conditions of the article it only proves the speciousness of your statement making your position appear very fragile.

 

[lpast]

The case in the article DOES not involve the pockets of the person accused. Now if you wish to keep changing the conditions of the article it only proves the speciousness of your statement making your position appear very fragile.

Im not disputing the article...and im really not disagreeing with you...just bring out other points...that do happen daily..

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So you like the guilty until proven innocent tyranny instead of the innocent until proven guilty laws?

Are you saying that every single thing must be decided in court right away? That's not possible if fairness or providing proof of guilt is the concern.

Surely you understand the booking and ticketing process. Depending on how serious the situation is either a ticket is given, which can be argued against - or one is taken into custody and the officer(s) must present evidence which necessitated the arrest or holding and it must be approved - a lot of people are taken in and not actually booked.

Cops don't go around arresting and ticketing without having to answer for their reasons and actions.

 

[Disputatious71]

Are you saying that every single thing must be decided in court right away? That's not possible if fairness or providing proof of guilt is the concern.

Surely you understand the booking and ticketing process. Depending on how serious the situation is either a ticket is given, which can be argued against - or one is taken into custody and the officer(s) must present evidence which necessitated the arrest or holding and it must be approved - a lot of people are taken in and not actually booked.
Cops don't go around arresting and ticketing without having to answer for their reasons and actions.

Are you saying that every single thing must be decided in court right away? I believe you just said that and not me.
Cops don't go around arresting and ticketing without having to answer for their reasons and actions. When any arrest, citation is given by an officer and the individual cited decides that he was wrongfully charged then the individual gets their day in court where the actions of the officer maybe questioned but THE INNOCENCE of the accused must be proved false along with the intent/knowledge of the crime. I am still not sure why this fact is being dismissed or ignored.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Are you saying that every single thing must be decided in court right away? I believe you just said that and not me.
Cops don't go around arresting and ticketing without having to answer for their reasons and actions. When any arrest, citation is given by an officer and the individual cited decides that he was wrongfully charged then the individual gets their day in court where the actions of the officer maybe questioned but THE INNOCENCE of the accused must be proved false along with the intent/knowledge of the crime. I am still not sure why this fact is being dismissed or ignored.

It's not being dismissed or ignored - you just think it is. You're defaulting to the belief that "a ticket means the person IS guilty" - when it's not.

 

[Disputatious71]

It's not being dismissed or ignored - you just think it is. You're defaulting to the belief that "a ticket means the person IS guilty" - when it's not.

It would be obvious to anyone that if it does not go to court then one concedes guilt by paying the ticket, plea bargaining, or having charges thrown out, so court is the only logical area to begin this debate. In court the prosecution should be able to establish mens rea or else not be able to proceed with his case.

 

[Befuddled_Stoner]

I was going to respond to this earlier by saying “Wait, you mean we still have some pretense of civil liberties left to lose, in regards to drug laws?!?” But then I started researching property seizure laws to make my point and got side-tracked into researching Alvarez v Smith…

Anyway, when drugs are involved, the government has taken liberties that allow them to remove custody of your kids, kill your pets, confiscate your house and car, and steal your life’s savings. Officially taking away the presumption of innocence is a mere formality at this point; not many even think about invoking it when the cops threaten to do all of the above and more to you for not promptly bending over and taking it up the ass.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It would be obvious to anyone that if it does not go to court then one concedes guilt by paying the ticket, plea bargaining, or having charges thrown out, so court is the only logical area to begin this debate. In court the prosecution should be able to establish mens rea or else not be able to proceed with his case.

"having charges thrown out" doesn't mean someone is saying they're guilty . . . and sometimes charges are just dropped with a slight bit of evidence against the charges filed (or ticket, whatever) - not to the court persay, but to the magistrate or what have you.