On this Episode of Boozy’s Legal Funhouse:
The Boozy Barrister/Boozy Badger is joined by Scuff, a Kansas prosecutor, for a talk about the basics of The Guilty Mind and criminal culpability in this episode of Boozy’s Legal Funhouse. On deck is a description of it means to have the requisite mental state for committing crimes, the unfairness of strict liability felonies, the introduction of Dipshit the Unicorn, and more. Also, Scuff surprises Boozy by being a prosecutor with a sense of actual justice. Also discussed is defrauding the elderly of Coca Cola stock, expanding the federal judiciary, and pun filled Twitter love letters to Joe Biden.
Links for This Episode:
State v. Blake:
If you’d like to support Boozy’s Legal Funhouse or Lawyers and Liquor, you can do so at:
Welcome to the third part of our interesting investigation of intent here on Lawyers & Liquor, where we strive to provide baby lawyers and law students with a profane purview of the legal profession. I’m your host with little to say and 1,500+ words to say it in, the Boozy Barrister.
So, like we’ve covered every other time, this guide isn’t really aimed at lawyers. I mean, at least not good lawyers who paid attention during their first year of law school and therefore have a semi-firm grasp on these basic fucking concepts. I mean, these are concepts so basic they get a latte from the same Starbucks every damn day. You should know this shit well before now if you’re an attorney and any where the day-to-day practice of lot and not busy being some in-house asshole who forms their furniture solely out of frightened interns and sales representatives. It’s basic and fundamental to the practice of law to understand the question of states of mind and intent in the civil and criminal law system, that’s what we’re getting at here.
And we’ve gone through it now. Last time and the time before that we looked at the basic differences between the criminal and civil justice system and the standards of proof used, and then at the question and definition of what “intent” and “mens rea” mean in regards to the criminal justice system alone. And that was some dense shit, man. This time, though, we’re going to go into the sort of law that most of the people out there are going to be experienced with at some point in their life, and that’s civil justice. Because life isn’t a fucking Law & Order episode where a random celebrity is going to show up and commit some horrible crime against us, no matter how many times Kevin Spacey tries to break into your bedroom at night.
So, without taking up any more of my precious intro space, let’s lead ourselves down the garden path of civil intent and its meaning in this, our penultimate installment in our multi-part series.
Continue reading “Liable But Not Culpable, Part 3: Lexplaining The Reasonable Person and Civil Justice”
Welcome to the second installment of the Lawyers & Liquor series on the difference between the criminal and civil justice systems. I’m your host, the Boozy Barrister.
So last time we talked about the general differences between the criminal and civil justice systems. We talked about the difference between the burdens of proof necessary to hold someone responsible for an offense, the intention of the two systems, the nature of who is bringing a case, the punishments, and where the basis for criminal and civil law is found. That was all leading up to today’s discussion, which could possibly be useful for lawyers that have lost half of their brain, or may have been practicing in one area for so long that they’ve forgotten the differences when they switch fields.
So, today on Lawyers & Liquor, and without any further dilly dallying back and forth, we’re going to start talking about the concept of mens rea in both the civil and criminal systems.
Let’s start with a conversation today about mens rea and criminal law because, once fucking again my wonderful little shit stains, this shit is somewhat complex and I’m basically boiling down like three weeks of criminal law courses into a single goddamn post for you.
Continue reading “Liable but not Culpable, Part 2: Lexplaining Intent in the Criminal System”