Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 8
Lesson 4: Mens rea requirements in criminalizationEvaluating the argument
Mens Rea Requirements in Criminalization:
Evaluate and discuss the argument presented in this video.
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
Sarah went onto a popular website and purchased a used laptop at a surprisingly good price. Unbeknownst to her, the laptop she bought had been stolen by the seller. There's a law against buying stolen goods. When police investigators discover Sarah’s purchase, they pick her up for questioning, during which she convinces them that it had never even crossed her mind that the laptop might be stolen.
Should the police charge her with the crime of buying stolen goods?
Consider the following range of opinions on this question:
- No, they shouldn’t. In fact, there shouldn’t be any laws against buying stolen goods. The only criminal is the person who stole the laptop. Other people, like Sarah, can’t be expected to investigate the proper ownership of every item they want to buy. There’s nothing wrong with her just looking to get the best deal she can.
- No, they shouldn’t. It makes sense to have a law against buying stolen goods, but only if it is applied in a reasonable way—to prosecute people who buy stolen goods intentionally, knowing that they were stolen. Sarah clearly does not fit into this category, since she had no idea the laptop was stolen.
- Yes, they should. Given the “surprisingly good price” of the laptop, it was Sarah’s responsibility to realize that something suspicious might be going on, and to inquire further into the legitimacy of the sale before going through with it. By not doing so, she helped the thief make money from their crime and, in this way, became part of it.
- Yes, they should. We criminalize the buying of stolen goods because it makes people less likely to buy them, thus making others less motivated to steal them in the first place. But this strategy only works if prosecution of the buyers often ends in their conviction and punishment—a virtual impossibility if it requires proving the buyer made the illicit purchase intentionally. So, despite Sarah’s probable innocence here, our fight against the scourge of theft requires eliminating any chance for buyers of stolen goods to make excuses as they contribute—wittingly or not—to the perpetuation of this societal evil.
Now, take some time - by yourself or with others - to reflect openly, yet critically, on the ethical considerations raised by the various perspectives, and determine where you stand on this issue. What do YOU think, and why?
Want to join the conversation?
I'm leaning to answer number 2, but number 3 has a very good argument. I've learned from my parents with me being a teenager that whenever I shop online, I should always check if the website is a credible place, like Walmart or Amazon, and if its a place where multiple different sellers are using, I would always go for the items with reasonable prices, not those suspiciously low prices that catch people's eyes.
I would like to hear other's opinions.(2 votes)