FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2080764832> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2080764832 endingPage "28" @default.
• W2080764832 startingPage "14" @default.
• W2080764832 abstract "I. Introduction According to Lafave and Scott, No area of the substantive criminal law has traditionally been surrounded by more confusion than that of ignorance or mistake of fact or law.[1] However, the authors go on to say that [i]n actuality, the basic rule is extremely simple: ignorance or mistake of fact or law is a defense when it negatives the existence of a mental state essential to the crime charged.[2] Typically then, a mistake of fact on the part of a defendant at the time of the offense serves to undergird a failure of proof defense. In a failure of proof defense, the defense attempts to show that an element essential to the definition of the crime is not present and, thus, that the prosecution has not proved its prima facie case. Regina v. Morgan provides an example of the utilization of a defense of this sort.[3] In Morgan, the Lords concluded that since Morgan's co-appellants sincerely believed that the alleged victim consented to intercourse (although in fact she had not), it cannot be said that they intended the act qua prohibited act, regardless of the reasonableness or unreasonableness of each of their beliefs regarding her consent. Thus, according to the Lords, controversial decision, the mens rea requirement is not met in circumstances in which a defendant charged with rape sincerely believed, at the time of the act, that the intercourse was consensual. In effect, the mistake of fact negatives defendant intent. An affirmative defense may also be founded upon a defendant's mistake of fact. defense of this sort may concede that the prosecution has made its prima facie case, that is, that the conduct and culpability requirements for the crime are met, but nevertheless contend that the defendant ought to be found not guilty for other reasons, for example, because the defendant's actions were justified or excused. People v. Young serves as an example of the application of such a defense.[4] In this case, Young went to the aid of an eighteen-year-old individual who was struggling against two assailants. According to Young, he intervened because the youth was crying and trying to escape the clutches of the two men who, in the struggle, had nearly removed the young man's pants. As a consequence of Young's intervention, one of the men believed by Young to be an unlawful assailant suffered a broken leg. Unbeknownst to Young, though, the two assailants were in fact plain clothes detectives. So, unfortunately for Young and the detectives, Young was mistaken about the facts of the situation. Specifically, he held the erroneous belief that the two assailants were ordinary civilians, not police officers carrying out their duties. However, although Young knowingly and purposely attacked the two men who turned out to be officers of the law (and, so, mens rea, in addition to the other material elements for assault, was clearly present),[5] Young had an affirmative defense for his conduct.[6] The New York State legislature provides those with reasonable but mistaken beliefs with the following defense: A person may...use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person.[7] In this paper, I shall focus upon the affirmative defense of actions similar to Young's, actions upon a faultless mistake of fact.[8] I shall advance the following thesis: action based upon a faultless mistake of fact are appropriately deemed excused, not justified, by morality and by the law.[9] In Section II, I explicate the basic distinction between the notions of justification and excuse as well as suggest why the distinction is important. In Section III, I provide an analysis of the notion faultless mistake of fact. Next, in Section IV, I criticize the competing analysis of Kent Greenawalt and provide arguments for the central thesis of my paper. …" @default.
• W2080764832 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2080764832 creator A5074750395 @default.
• W2080764832 date "1993-06-01" @default.
• W2080764832 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W2080764832 title "Faultless mistake of fact: Justification or excuse?" @default.
• W2080764832 cites W1529764976 @default.
• W2080764832 cites W2022251420 @default.
• W2080764832 cites W2026757091 @default.
• W2080764832 cites W2031803653 @default.
• W2080764832 cites W2102556478 @default.
• W2080764832 cites W2796019385 @default.
• W2080764832 cites W2912076009 @default.
• W2080764832 cites W3148923306 @default.
• W2080764832 cites W4211226142 @default.
• W2080764832 cites W4256187362 @default.
• W2080764832 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129x.1993.9991948" @default.
• W2080764832 hasPublicationYear "1993" @default.
• W2080764832 type Work @default.
• W2080764832 sameAs 2080764832 @default.
• W2080764832 citedByCount "13" @default.
• W2080764832 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2080764832 hasAuthorship W2080764832A5074750395 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C152588399 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C159717818 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C200288055 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C202565627 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C2777179996 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C2777998198 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C2778732403 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConcept C83645499 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C138885662 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C152588399 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C159717818 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C17744445 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C199539241 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C200288055 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C202565627 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C2777179996 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C2777998198 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C2778732403 @default.
• W2080764832 hasConceptScore W2080764832C83645499 @default.
• W2080764832 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2080764832 hasLocation W20807648321 @default.
• W2080764832 hasOpenAccess W2080764832 @default.
• W2080764832 hasPrimaryLocation W20807648321 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W1582973440 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W1964166581 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W1968441220 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W1969099766 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W1977576388 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W1981973427 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W1983454739 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W1984088076 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W1984308375 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2001634108 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2003077837 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2008396928 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2009225256 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2011159125 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2011182174 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2011508098 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2017385089 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2023270709 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W2073679897 @default.
• W2080764832 hasRelatedWork W602585986 @default.
• W2080764832 hasVolume "12" @default.
• W2080764832 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2080764832 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2080764832 magId "2080764832" @default.
• W2080764832 workType "article" @default.