[baddox]

I think there's a clear difference between all thoughts and intentions. Intentions are a subset of thoughts. There is a legal distinction between accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car and intentionally doing so. I don't consider that thought crime.

To clarify, I don't think it would be illegal for the president to establish immigration restrictions (that are otherwise legal) while thinking something bad about Muslims. The problem is intending the restrictions to target Muslims.

[paulddraper]

> There is a legal distinction between accidentally hitting a pedestrian with your car and intentionally doing so.

The difference is between manslaughter and homicide. We take age, sanity, and intent into account, but hitting someone with your car is illegal no matter your mental state.

Likewise, tax fraud (intentional) is punished differently than tax negligence (unintentional). In either case, the action is illegal, and due taxes must be paid.

[dragonwriter]

> The difference is between manslaughter and homicide. We take age, sanity, and intent into account, but hitting someone with your car is illegal no matter your mental state.

Incorrect. Now, in most cases, hitting someone while driving will be at least criminally negligent and thus be some crime, but it's not impossible for hitting a pedestrian to be a non-crime because of the absence of the mental state required for any applicable crime.

> Likewise, tax fraud (intentional) is punished differently than tax negligence (unintentional).

"Negligence" is itself a mental state. That an act is illegal (though of different magnitude) when it is done through negligence as well as intentionally does not demonstrate that mental state is relevant only to degree of punishment, not legality. (There are strict liability offenses for which mental state is not relevant to legality, only possibly severity, but strict liability is exceptional in the law, particularly criminal law.)

[ekiru]

> but it's not impossible for hitting a pedestrian to be a non-crime because of the absence of the mental state required for any applicable crime.

Out of curiosity, under what conditions would this be the case?

[baddox]

I don't follow your argument. This car example seems to qualify under your definition of thought crime.

[paulddraper]

Sorry for being unclear.

I mean to say that intent (and other aspects of mental state) can influence the severity of punishment.

It shouldn't determine whether something is legal, however.

Hitting pedestrians ought to be illegal regardless of whether you intended to do it or not.

[foldr]

Accidentally killing someone is not, in general, illegal. It typically would be if you did it while driving a car, as in this instance it would probably result from negligence on your part. But if you, say, trip over, bump into someone and then accidentally knock them off a ledge, you haven't committed a crime.