WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul joined Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and David Perdue (R-GA) in reintroducing the Mens Rea Reform Act. Senator Hatch’s legislation creates a default intent standard of “willfulness” for all federal criminal offenses lacking such a requirement, forcing the government to prove a defendant knew their conduct was unlawful.
"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.
“Rampant and unfair overcriminalization in America calls for criminal justice reform, which starts with default mens rea legislation,” said Sen. Hatch. “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.”
All in favor of reducing the size of the federal footprint in our lives, say 'Aye.'
The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague
However, forcing the government to prove a defendant knew their conduct was unlawful could provide some excellent shenanigans opportunities for swamp denizens and their ilk, as "proof of malice" can sometimes skew our civil lible laws. Didn't Comey argue against indicting Clinton because (not only was it outside the scope of his position) he didn't think "intent" could be proven (even though not required)?
I'm not sure how adding requirements to old law lessens the federal footprint. If we want a less Byzantine system, let us abolish and/or consolidate old laws, instead of adding new ones.
"She had yellow hair and she walked funny and she made a noise like... O my God, please don't kill me! "
