Re: Bad idea: Punishing false accusers

John James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> 
> "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> [...]
>> > Either what you did was right or it was wrong. That you did it
>> > should be the only thing at issue. If anything, malice should be a
>> > factor only in sentencing. It plays no part in whether a crime was
>> > committed or not.
>>
>> Actually, it does (or rather, it should) - in a legal sense, for one
>> crime at least.  Malice aforethought determines whether a murder was
>> committed in English Law.  But actually, this 'malice' thing is a
>> diversion.  See below.
> 
> Not so. 'Malice' in the legal sense *means* 'wrongful intention'.

i know.

> It is not a diversion, but synonymous with the concept of intent.

i think it muddies the waters because of its common meaning.  Certainly 
Rich's question about 'malice' in cases of rape confirms that view.

Another question - in fact, the one that Rich has repeatedly given his 
answer to - is *whether* intent *should* be a factor.  i think that it 
should, clearly, but we already have crimes where it is not, and perhaps 
the laws surrounding sexual assault are heading that way, in the US if 
nowhere else.

> John James (JJ)

-- 
Neil