• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Rules Against Government in Identity-Theft Case

It can be confusing, but the difference is between "general intent" crimes and "specific intent" crimes.

The ruling has really has nothing or very little to do with the legal status of the individual in the United States.

Basically what the ruling says and what the law requires is that if a person obtains a fake ID/SSN# with the intent to steal the person's identity and to defraud that person, it is a crime.
It is not "identity theft" if you believe that it is fake but have no knowledge of or try to assume the identity of another individual.

In other words, if an person obtains my SSN# and information and thereby tries to pass himself off as me...that is one thing.
If they fraudently randomly pick my SSN# but refer to themselves as Jose Gonzales or even Joe Smith, neither of which is my name, there is no intent to assume the identity and therefore no identity theft.

From what I read, this is only mostly right. The law in question specifically states that the defendant has to "knowingly" steal an identity. I have not read the whole ruling, but the from what I have read so far on it, the word "knowingly" in the law is the issue. With the law worded as it is, SCOTUS had no choice in how they ruled, which is why it was an actual unanimous decision. They did not to my knowledge rule on the global issue on whether the law could be changed to take out the word "knowingly" and then prosecute some one who unknowingly stole an identity by using a random number SSN.
 
If you posses more than a certain amount they automatically charge you with intent to distribute even though they have no evidence proving as such.
Apples and oranges, actually.

The intent to distribute is presumed by statute from the quantity itself. No further evidence is needed.
 
I'm getting woosey... two agreements with you in one thread... I need fluids... :2wave:

633576400771138665-whatyoudidntdividebyzerodidyou.jpg
 
Intent is not a requisite element of every crime. Under the felony murder rule, for example, if a person dies of a heart attack while being held up at gunpoint, the mugger is still a murderer despite not having formed an intent to kill.

In the particulars of the specific identity theft law under scrutiny, one of the requisite elements of the crime is that the person "knowingly" use another person's SSN. That creates a burden on the prosecution to show that the defendant used the SSN knowing that it had been assigned to another person--that there was intent to steal another person's identity.

Perhaps the defendant did have such knowledge. That is not impossible. However, if the evidence presented does not establish that he had such knowledge, the only legally correct verdict is "not guilty" on the specific crime of identity theft, as the statute is currently constructed.

If the construction of the statute is flawed as a matter of public policy, then it is up to the legislature to modify the statute to remove intent as a requisite element of the offense.


Not likely. The Supreme Court basically said the prosecution screwed the pooch by charging the wrong crime and/or failing to prove the crime charged. Sucky day for the prosecution, but the moral of the story is prosecutors need to do their homework.

Sigh, you are posting faster, and with better information than me here...
 
In your scenario above it wouldn't be more but involuntary manslaughter because even though your doing a despicable act you had no intent to kill.
Again, it goes to statutory construction. By law, if a person dies during the commission of a crime, the person committing the crime is guilty of murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
 
Apples and oranges, actually.

The intent to distribute is presumed by statute from the quantity itself. No further evidence is needed.

But honestly how can you deduce that someone has an intent to do so when all it could be is for personal use.

They could alter it to where having any amount means you intend to distribute.
 
I'm getting woosey... two agreements with you in one thread... I need fluids... :2wave:
Indeed....a single malt, preferably a Speyside :mrgreen:
 
But honestly how can you deduce that someone has an intent to do so when all it could be is for personal use.

They could alter it to where having any amount means you intend to distribute.
Yes they could. However, that argument is a matter for the legislature, not the courts, unless and until there is a Constitutional dimension to the matter.
 
I understand but like with drug laws.

If you posses more than a certain amount they automatically charge you with intent to distribute even though they have no evidence proving as such.

I agree. But if I were a DA I would argue that things such as amount, packaging, lack of paraphernalia, scales, are all indications of intent to sell or distribute.

If a person has 10 rocks....probably not sells. But if they have 100 rocks, individually wrapped, pretty good argument that it is possessed with intent to distribute/sell.
 
Yes they could. However, that argument is a matter for the legislature, not the courts, unless and until there is a Constitutional dimension to the matter.

I think they relate very much so.

Law could be so much simpler if lawyers and politico's didn't crap it up so much.
 
I agree. But if I were a DA I would argue that things such as amount, packaging, lack of paraphernalia, scales, are all indications of intent to sell or distribute.

If a person has 10 rocks....probably not sells. But if they have 100 rocks, individually wrapped, pretty good argument that it is possessed with intent to distribute/sell.

That would make sense.

The amount doesn't really matter until you get to very, very large quantities.

I think a quarter ounce of Marijuana automatically gets you an intent to distribute.
A quarter ounce isn't very much.
 
That would make sense.

The amount doesn't really matter until you get to very, very large quantities.

I think a quarter ounce of Marijuana automatically gets you an intent to distribute.
A quarter ounce isn't very much.

Yeah....1/4 ounce is nothing....but sometimes DA's can be a little overzealous. I've seen them charge possession for sell with as little as 3 rocks here in LA.
 
Back
Top Bottom