1 / 13

People vs. Jensen

People vs. Jensen. By: Maddie & Amanda. Specific Intent General Intent Strict liability Mens Rea. KEY TERMS. Make sure you know them!!. Overview of the case.

selena
Télécharger la présentation

People vs. Jensen

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. People vs. Jensen By: Maddie & Amanda

  2. Specific Intent General Intent Strict liability Mens Rea KEY TERMS Make sure you know them!!

  3. Overview of the case Jensen was convicted of 3 counts of knowing she was HIV positive and still having sexual relationships without informing her partners. She was found guilty on every count but appealed to have the supreme court review constitutional claims.

  4. The Finding.. The court found that the HIV notice does not violate the defendant's right to privacy or against compelled speech. It is a crime to not inform your partner of infection because it requires mutual consent and one cannot consent if they don't know if the other person is infected. This does not require mens rea. Giving your partner disclosure of infection lets them have the choice to either agree or disagree and have comprehension of the risk they are taking. Also, the Legislature primary concern is to find out where the spread of this incurable virus is coming from.

  5. The defendant argues that the law is unconstitutional because it does not contain mens rea. She believes that if the statute does not require mens rea, then one can’t be found criminally responsible because they didn’t intend to harm. What does the defendant think..?

  6. QUESTIONS!! ARE YOU REALLY GETTING IT?

  7. What kind of crimes require intent? Which do not? • Assault • Burglary • Larceny • Murder • Rape • Statutory Rape • Speeding • Possessions • Selling alcohol to minors • DWI’s

  8. WHat is the difference between specific intent & General intent? Specific Intent: a thoughtful conscious intention to perform a specific act in order to achieve a specific result. General Intent: the form of intent that can be assumed from the defendants behavior.. refers to physical conduct What does this have to do with the case? -Nothing because the case is a strict liability case.

  9. WHy does the court find that the statute on which this case is based does not require strict liability? The court found that the statute on which this case is based does not require strict liability because if the defendant discloses their HIV, or AIDS positive status and the other person consented to sexual activity, then there would be no criminal liability The court came to this decision using the case People vs. Lardie.

  10. What do you think?

  11. Maddie: I think it shouldnt become a personal status because it involves the health of another individual and the chance of them dying if they were to become infected with hiv Amanda: I think that it shouldn’t become a personal status because if you do give them HIV or AIDS you are basically killing that person. some people argue that the kind of law discussed in this case Turns into a personal status.. what do you think?

  12. Do we agree with the Court's ruling in this case? how about you? Maddie: Yes i agree with it because it’s important to tell your partner what’s going on because it's their health that's being gambled. Amanda: i agree because if you had no idea you had sexual relations with someone who is diagnosed with HIV or AIDS, you’d freak out too. them not telling you is wrong on so many levels. i think you should have the right to take them to court. YEs you concented, but thats before you knew what was really going on.

  13. Any questions?

More Related