Talk:Element (criminal law)

message: Is Element (criminal) the best location of the page? The bolded terms on the page are actually element of a crime and elements of a crime - it may be better to have the page at Elements of a crime, with the others redirecting to there. There's the additional problem that the phrase Criminal element is usually used to refer to a group or organization of criminals and other bad influences, rather than the specific legal topics discussed on this page. -- 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I chose the title because "Elements of a crime" seemed long, but now that you mention it, I like it better. It is more descriptive of the article and more recognizable I think. Mattisse 20:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: It occurs to me that there is an additional element necessary for a crime: the existence of law (and thus, without government there'd be no crime, yadda yadda libertopian anarchy etc ad nauseam). This may seem a tautology - obviously, you can't break a law without a law to break - but it's been quite relevant in cases like those of Kenneth Pinyan: after Pinyan's death by misadventure, his companions were found to be immune from prosecution, because there had been no law against the behaviors in which they had been engaging. Or consider Joe Kennedy, who made his fortune via stock-market manipulation in ways which are now illegal, but which were not illegal at the time. Inversely, George Klippert was freed from prison after the Canadian government decriminalized homosexuality: although he had committed the illegal actions, they were no longer illegal.
Is this something that's worth adding to the article? Does it count as Original Research, or Synthesis, or...? DS (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be Original Research, IMO, as in common law each crime has specific elements listed by law as having to be proved in order to convict, usually some combination of the ones listed in the article. It is a given that without government,  common law legal systems would not exist. There are other issues that are not considered "elements". For example, the alleged crime must be "possible" to commit. A person cannot be convict of a crime that is "impossible" to commit. I don't think this is strictly an 'element", athough it could be if the defendant's defense was "impossility." Then the jury instructions would include what constitutes "impossibility".  This is my take on the issue you bring up. Regards,  Mattisse 15:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional possibility? 

message: Finally a law article that's understandable to the amateur and cuts to the chase, lacking wikipedia users' usual technical jargon. Approved, and you might as well just delete the entire actus reus and mens rea articles and put these descriptions in their place.
-Maxstate
:The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was support for move. I think Anthony Appleyard's suggested modification is a good one, sewing up any ambiguity, and there has been no comments addressed to it over seven days.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support per reasoning provided at Talk:Consent (criminal)#Survey.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey