@sarahjeong I think some people think an intent standard requires we read someone's mind, vs. just inferring intent from the circumstances
-
@sarahjeong Like, the *purpose* of the jury is exactly to decide what the "truth" is about ultimately unknowable things like "intent"
@bergmayer Lot of layers of "know" here too-- like we're speculating right now on how juries operate but really we don't know that,
-
-
@bergmayer the intent requirement includes whether or not the speaker knew certain things -
@bergmayer including whether what he said was a true threat, which just turns into a recursive analysis-- not sure why Breyer doesn't notice -
@bergmayer So the jury is trying to know something what the speaker knew, and whether he knew something that has knowledge in its definition -
@sarahjeong@sarahjeong yeah it's always weird when "intent" becomes "Did I intend to break the law" for exactly that reason -
@sarahjeong my theory is that criminal law is an irredeemably flawed but necessary process so we round up a jury and go "You figure it out" -
@bergmayer isn't that just legal realism
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.