Re: Weird argument
I appreciate the link. That case gives legal precedent that:
the prosecution [can] prove mens rea on the basis of ‘recklessness’ -- ie. that mens rea applies.
So, "mens rea" requires intention, the recklessness attempted as a defence is used to prove intention. It's not the same thing as you stated:
“Mens rea” includes not just the intention to do it, but also recklessness and negligence.
That statement is wrong. Recklessness may not be used to avoid "mens rea". Fair enough, a semantic quibble, but then that's good enough for the barristers!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
