8 Comments

Crimes based solely on an actus reus without a mens rea in concordance with its punishment will ultimately lead to absurd results such as these.

Obviously, the prosecutor’s budget is too big if he or she is prosecuting such silly cases. Perhaps it ought to be reduced. That would send the right message.

12:38- In this case, the Defendant had the requisite mens rea. She intended to bring the knife to school, her statement indicates that. The statute is probably a negligence statute, meaning that she could negligently bring the knife to school (lets say by leaving it in her back pack accidentally) and still be liable under the statute. Actus Reus: Bringing the knife to school
Mens Rea: Intending to bring the knife to school (Intent).
The statute may itself be problematic from your perspective, by not requiring some further intent, (lets say intent to harm someone else), but given the information above, it would appear that this is not a strict liability offense (one where there is no mens rea requirement).

There is no mens rea because there is no actus reus. “The student now faces a felony charge for the possession of a weapon on school property.”

But that’s not a crime. It can’t be a crime, because it would apply to everyone.

Since when is a steak knife a weapon? I know it can be used as one, but is it a weapon? This girl was literally employing the steak knife for the task which it was designed for. The only way that a steak knife becomes a weapon is by it being used in a manner other than the one it was designed for. There are dozens of objects that are permitted in schools that can be potential weapons, pencils, pens and scissors come to mind immediately. I don’t see students being charged for carrying or using these.

Give them an inch and they will take a mile. So zero tolerance.

But what was the risk at the school. Steak knives in prisons would be a hazard, but when was there a stabbing in the school? Or in the community? Violence on TV? Yes, lots of it. But what is common on TV is not common, it is news.

Philip Howard of Common Good has it right. Discretion was severely limited by legal activists. Now policies are required for everything. It is nuts.

A little off topic. There was too much lead in paint on some toys. That item was a fire cracker in a hen house. Before the lead can harm a human it has to be ingested in some way. Paint adheres so strongly to plastic that the risk of ingestion is zero. What do our legislators do? They work for lower lead in the paint. They are so stupid so often it is really depressing.

“…given the information above, it would appear that this is not a strict liability offense (one where there is no mens rea requirement).”

It most certainly IS a strict liability offense! Do even the slightest bit of research, and you’ll find cases such as the one where a bread knife was left in the bed of a truck, unintentionally (fell out of the container), and the student received the full “zero tolerance” treatment.

Or the case (mentioned here) where the student discovered (before school even started) that he had forgotten to remove his pocket knife from his backback after a camping trip, stopped in at the principle’s office before doing ANYTHING else to turn it in, and got… the full “zero tolerance” treatment.

“Zero tolerance” policies, as currently practiced, are insane (the reason Jim Collins describes above being but one of many).

This is zero tolerance policy and a zero common sense policy. Common sense should dictate that a little girl cutting her food is not a threat.