PDA

View Full Version : Mens Rea Reform Act of 2017




mrsat_98
10-22-2017, 07:51 AM
Interesting considering: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?506330-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-POT-BUST&highlight=thorne+peters

https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/10/senators-hatch-lee-cruz-perdue-and-paul-introduce-bill-to-strength-criminal-intent-protections

Press Releases
Home / News Room / Press Releases
Press releases are archived according to their release date. For press releases by topic, please see the Issue Positions page.
Oct 02 2017

Senators Hatch, Lee, Cruz, Perdue, and Paul Introduce Bill to Strength Criminal Intent Protections


Washington, D.C.—Today, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), David Perdue (R-GA), and Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced legislation to strengthen criminal intent protections in federal law. Their bill, the Mens Rea Reform Act of 2017, would set a default intent standard for all criminal laws and regulations that lack such a standard. This legislation would ensure that courts and creative prosecutors do not take the absence of a criminal intent standard to mean that the government can obtain a conviction without any proof a guilty mind.

Senator Hatch will deliver a speech on the Senate floor about the need for mens rea reform at 3:30 p.m. EDT. Follow the speech live here.

“Rampant and unfair overcriminalization in America calls for criminal justice reform, which starts with default mens rea legislation,” Sen. Hatch said. “Requiring proof of criminal intent protects individuals from prison time or other criminal penalties for accidental conduct or for activities they didn’t know were wrong. In recent years, Congress and federal agencies have increasingly created crimes with vague or unclear criminal intent requirements or with no criminal intent requirement at all. The Mens Rea Reform Act will help correct that problem and ensure that honest, hardworking Americans are not swept up in the criminal justice system for doing things they didn’t know were against the law.”

“Prosecutors should have to show a suspect had a guilty mind, not just that they committed an illegal act, before an American is put behind bars,” Sen. Lee said. “Unfortunately our federal laws contain far too many provisions that do not require prosecutors to prove a defendant intended to commit a crime. The result is criminal justice system that over penalizes innocent acts which only undermines the rule of law."

“I’m proud to join Sen. Hatch in addressing one of the biggest flaws in our modern criminal justice system,”Sen. Cruz said. “Currently, the federal government can send men and women to prison without demonstrating criminal intent. As Congress works to address criminal justice reform, the Mens Rea Reform Act needs to be enacted to protect the rights of all Americans.”

"Our criminal justice system is supposed to be built on the foundation of ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ yet the massive growth of Big Government subjects Americans to possible jail time for crimes they could have had no reasonable idea they were committing. This bill would implement much-needed change,” said Sen. Paul.

Statements of Support

John Malcolm, Vice President for the Institute for Constitutional Government and Director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Heritage Foundation:

Senator Hatch deserves a lot credit for keeping the issue of mens rea reform on the front burner. Mens rea reform is a matter of fundamental fairness. By having adequate mens rea standards, we ensure that moral blameworthiness is front and center in our criminal justice system. The intent of the actor should make a difference in whether he is criminally prosecuted or is dealt with through the civil or administrative justice systems. We should not be so cavalier about labeling someone a criminal, with all of the collateral consequences that flow from that, when someone does something unwittingly that causes harm. Restoring moral blameworthiness to greater prominence in our criminal laws will revitalize our criminal justice system and preserve its moral authority, which, in turn, will engender respect for the rule of law.

Norman L. Reimer, Executive Director, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL):

NACDL lauds this important solution among several solutions that it actively supports to help address the fundamental imbalances and the destructive consequences of this country’s criminal justice system. Its members urge Congress to support Senator Hatch’s continued commitment to this fundamental principle of fairness.

David Patton, Executive Director and Attorney-in-Chief, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.:

As Federal Defenders, we are acutely aware of the need for mens rea reform. Over 80 percent of people charged with federal crimes are too poor to afford a lawyer, and nearly 80 percent of people charged with federal crimes are Black, Hispanic, or Native American. These are our clients, and too many of them are subject to laws that are neither fair nor consistent with traditional principles of criminal liability. This bill would help to remedy some of those failings.

Efforts to reform mens rea intent requirements for federal criminal statutes are supported by the US Chamber of Commerce, Heritage Foundation, Koch Industries, and many others.

Permalink: https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/10/senators-hatch-lee-cruz-perdue-and-paul-introduce-bill-to-strength-criminal-intent-protections

mrsat_98
10-22-2017, 07:52 AM
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2298/text



114th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 2298

To specify the state of mind required for conviction for criminal
offenses that lack an expressly identified state of mind, and for other
purposes.


__________________________________________________ _____________________


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 18, 2015

Mr. Hatch (for himself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Perdue, and Mr. Paul)
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary

__________________________________________________ _____________________

A BILL



To specify the state of mind required for conviction for criminal
offenses that lack an expressly identified state of mind, and for other
purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Mens Rea Reform Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. STATE OF MIND ELEMENT FOR CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

(a) Chapter 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``Sec. 28. State of mind when not otherwise specifically provided
``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `covered offense'--
``(A) means an offense--
``(i) specified in--
``(I) this title or any other Act
of Congress;
``(II) any regulation; or
``(III) any law (including
regulations) of any State or foreign
government incorporated by reference
into this title or any other Act of
Congress; and
``(ii) that is punishable by imprisonment,
a maximum criminal fine of at least $2,500, or
both; and
``(B) does not include--
``(i) any offense set forth in chapter 47
or chapter 47A of title 10;
``(ii) any offense incorporated by section
13(a) of this title; or
``(iii) any offense that involves conduct
which a reasonable person would know inherently
poses an imminent and substantial danger to
life or limb;
``(2) the term `knowingly', as related to an element of an
offense, means--
``(A) if the element involves the nature of the
conduct of a person or the attendant circumstances,
that the person is aware that the conduct of the person
is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
``(B) if the element involves a result of the
conduct of a person, that the person is aware that it
is practically certain that the conduct of the person
will cause such a result;
``(3) the term `state of mind' means willfully,
intentionally, maliciously, knowingly, recklessly, wantonly,
negligently, or with reason to believe, or any other word or
phrase that is synonymous with or substantially similar to any
such term; and
``(4) the term `willfully', as related to an element of an
offense, means that the person acted with knowledge that the
person's conduct was unlawful.
``(b) Default Requirement.--Except as provided in subsections (c)
and (d), a covered offense shall be construed to require the Government
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted--
``(1) with the state of mind specified in the text of the
covered offense for each element for which the text specifies a
state of mind; and
``(2) willfully, with respect to any element for which the
text of the covered offense does not specify a state of mind.
``(c) Failure To Distinguish Among Elements.--Except as provided in
subsection (d), if the text of a covered offense specifies the state of
mind required for commission of the covered offense without specifying
the elements of the covered offense to which the state of mind applies,
the state of mind specified shall apply to all elements of the covered
offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.
``(d) Exceptions.--
``(1) In general.--Subsections (b)(2) and (c) shall not
apply with respect to--
``(A) any element for which the text of the covered
offense makes clear that Congress affirmatively
intended not to require the Government to prove any
state of mind with respect to such element;
``(B) any element of a covered offense, to the
extent that the element establishes--
``(i) subject matter jurisdiction over the
covered offense; or
``(ii) venue with respect to trial of the
covered offense; or
``(C) any element of a covered offense, to the
extent that applying subsections (b)(2) and (c) to such
element would lessen the degree of mental culpability
that the Government is required to prove with respect
to that element under--
``(i) precedent of the Supreme Court of the
United States; or
``(ii) any other provision of this title,
any other Act of Congress, or any regulation.
``(2) Mere absence insufficient.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)(A), the mere absence of a specified state of mind for an
element of a covered offense in the text of the covered offense
shall not be construed to mean that Congress affirmatively
intended not to require the Government to prove any state of
mind with respect to that element.
``(e) Applicability.--This section shall apply with respect to a
covered offense--
``(1) without regard to whether the provision or provisions
specifying the covered offense are enacted, promulgated, or
finalized before, on, or after the date of enactment of this
section; and
``(2) that occurred--
``(A) on or after the date of enactment of this
section; or
``(B) before the date of enactment of this section,
unless--
``(i) applying this section to such covered
offense would--
``(I) punish as a crime conduct
that was innocent when done;
``(II) increase the punishment for
the covered offense; or
``(III) deprive a person charged
with the covered offense of any defense
available according to law at the time
the covered offense occurred;
``(ii) a jury has been empaneled and sworn
in a prosecution for the covered offense before
the date of enactment of this section;
``(iii) the first witness has been sworn in
a prosecution for the covered offense tried
without a jury before the date of enactment of
this section; or
``(iv) a sentence has been imposed
following a plea of guilty or nolo contendere
in a prosecution for the covered offense before
the date of enactment of this section.
``(f) Subsequently Enacted Laws.--No law enacted after the date of
enactment of this section shall be construed to repeal, modify the text
or effect of, or supersede in whole or in part this section, unless
such law specifically refers to this section and explicitly repeals,
modifies the text or effect of, or supersedes in whole or in part this
section.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
chapter 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``28. State of mind when not otherwise specifically provided.''.
<all>

The Northbreather
10-22-2017, 08:20 AM
Is this taking a swipe at "conspiracy" charges?

otherone
10-22-2017, 09:01 AM
Lotsa "R"s. no "D"s.

mrsat_98
10-22-2017, 10:36 AM
Is this taking a swipe at "conspiracy" charges?

I don't think so, http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?506330-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-POT-BUST&highlight=thorne+peters is the first place I was exposed to it.

devil21
10-22-2017, 12:46 PM
Interesting to see if Congress passes it. Not that it couldn't be questioned as to why old ass Orrin Hatch now is suddenly a champion against victimless "crimes". Requiring proof of intent to cause harm for criminal cases is a major change and would nullify huge swaths of corporate government regulations (aka criminal codes). Definitely worth watching, thanks for posting.