Quote:
Originally Posted by VincentVega
i mean honestly does him knowing what the guy is using the car for even matter from a legal standpoint? What if he said he was going to Taco Bell and went and raped the lenders mother? Should Jimbo be convicted of being an accomplice in that situation? I know you're a lawyer but these things are interesting.
The argument for why it matters is:
If he knew, he had knowledge of the intent of the parties to participate in violent crime. The result was terrible, but not an unforseeable result of violent crime.
In terms of deterrence, if he knew it matters because we want to deter people from participating willingly in the violent crimes committed by criminals. In this instance, lending his car for the purpose of burglary is indistinguishable, legally, from lending a bag of fertilizer for the building of a bomb. He had foresight re: the violent purpose, and is held responsible in order to deter cooperation with "plots" to commit violent crime.
The argument for why he shouldn't be punished if he didn't know (and this law would not punish him if the jury believed he didn't know) is:
If he had no foresight about the violent crime, there would be no reason for him to fear the result of participation.
In terms of deterrence, there'd be nothing to deter - we have no interest in deterring cooperation among human beings (unless it's to deter nefarious cooperation).