Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joseph sugarman
Mens rea is not an element of most traffic infractions; as a matter of fact mens rea is not an element of most mala prohibida crimes. Therefore willfullness--whether you meant to do it or not-- is not an issue. Therefore it is not available as an affirmative defense.
The right to travel is not per the constitution. The right to travel was recognized by the writers of the Consitution as one of the inalienable rights; so they listed it as one protected by the document--not per the document.
|
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Instead of speaking from solely from guesswork or from personal opinion perhaps you might do well to look up case law about "municipal ordinance violations" and criminal standard of burden of proof given in such cases.
Quote:
|
Initially, we note that the law ...considers violations of municipal ordinances to be civil matters, but requires courts to apply the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt because of the quasi-criminal aspects involved. (725 S.W.2d 904, 907)
|
I Myself was neither voicing my private opinion nor exercising my powers of guess-ability. Criminal standard of proof = mens rea + actus rea must be found. This limits the State actors from unjustly enriching themselves in the countryside.