You've got everything backwards, but why let reality get in the way?
Intent still the primary factor of most criminal laws at the federal level, and all criminal laws at the state levels (excluding infractions punishable by fines).
There are only a handful of federal laws which do not require intent (i.e., strict liability laws) and of those, none provide for imprisonment at the level of strict liabilty (though may provide for imprisonment if there is actual intent). For example, some securities laws are strict liability. The punishment is disgorgement of profits, but imprisonment is not on the table.
Most citizens are comforted by the notion, that no matter the unfairness in the initial process, eventually they will be able to present their case to a jury of their peers. However, even juries are no longer a right in most trials. Since the federal constitution's jury trial requirement was never incorporated against the states, most local magistrates are given the power to sentence defendants for up to six months in jail per count. Because most defendants face multiple charges stemming from the same conduct, there are countless American citizens spending years in jail, never having had their case heard by a jury.
This is factually false. The right to a trial by jury has been imposed upon the states by way of the 14th Amendment for more than 100 years. (Do you really think the South would have given black defendants jury trials in the Jim Crow days if they weren't required to?)
Where did you get your information? You're better of just staying silent if you don't know what you're talking about.
There's no need for aggression, especially when you're spectacularly wrong. There's nothing more dangerous than a confident yet totally inaccurate fact-checker.
The right to trial by jury is not fully incorporated against the states. That's a common myth. It only applies if the term of imprisonment is six months or greater. Otherwise, the right is not incorporated. See Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970) Hence, the end-run I described where police charge a variety of lesser counts, try the case before the local magistrate, and the cumulative sentence ends up as years without a jury ever examining the evidence.
There are plenty of black defendants in the South right now who would be happy to explain to you the intricacies of partial incorporation, if you're so inclined.
As for this statement:
>"Intent still the primary factor of most criminal laws at the federal level, and all criminal laws at the state levels (excluding infractions punishable by fines)." (Emphasis Mine.)
Let me list a few state criminal strict liability statutes that certainly come with incarceration:
Statutory Rape
Terroristic Threat
Driving While Intoxicated
Sale of Restricted Substance to a Minor
Corruption of Minors
I noticed you limited your comment to federal laws, while I did not, and even explicitly falsely denied the large trend in states toward strict liability criminal laws. We could also have a lengthy discussion about the various ways in which the necessary intent is being obfuscated in dozens of commonly charged statutes.
The mens rea requirement is being rapidly eroded. Yelling loudly on the internet won't change that.
As for where I got my information, that would be Princeton University, and four years as a paralegal under an attorney with a JD/MBA from the University of Chicago.
Intent still the primary factor of most criminal laws at the federal level, and all criminal laws at the state levels (excluding infractions punishable by fines).
There are only a handful of federal laws which do not require intent (i.e., strict liability laws) and of those, none provide for imprisonment at the level of strict liabilty (though may provide for imprisonment if there is actual intent). For example, some securities laws are strict liability. The punishment is disgorgement of profits, but imprisonment is not on the table.
Most citizens are comforted by the notion, that no matter the unfairness in the initial process, eventually they will be able to present their case to a jury of their peers. However, even juries are no longer a right in most trials. Since the federal constitution's jury trial requirement was never incorporated against the states, most local magistrates are given the power to sentence defendants for up to six months in jail per count. Because most defendants face multiple charges stemming from the same conduct, there are countless American citizens spending years in jail, never having had their case heard by a jury.
This is factually false. The right to a trial by jury has been imposed upon the states by way of the 14th Amendment for more than 100 years. (Do you really think the South would have given black defendants jury trials in the Jim Crow days if they weren't required to?)
Where did you get your information? You're better of just staying silent if you don't know what you're talking about.