<div>On 5/5/06, Dennis Claxton <<a href="mailto:ddclaxton@earthlink.net">ddclaxton@earthlink.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Unless you live in public housing: "We hold that Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue," writes Chief Justice William Rehnquist in an 11-page decision. Federal law "requires lease terms that give local public housing authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of the drug-related activity." <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0327/p02s01-usju.html"> http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0327/p02s01-usju.html</a></blockquote><div> Some of the difference here is between a criminal penalty and a civil penalty.  Also congress by statute has essentially introduced strict liability in this case. I am not saying that this is just or fair.  </div>  In general Andie is correct, mens rea is required in drug cases.  But as Dresseler continually points out in these cases mens rea is interpreted by the courts in a variety of ways.  For example just a random quote from one of my old notebooks: Purpose versus Knowledge: The Meaning of Intent "The mens rea of accomplice liability is usually described in terms of "intention."  As with the crime of conspiracy, however, there is considerable debate regardin whether a person may properly be characterized as an accopmplice if he knows that his assistance will aid in a crime, but he lacks the purpose." Also, in many "possession" cases the argument that the person should have known is good enought to impute knowledge that the contraband was in his/her possession. Example:  Everyday example: Say, you are driving in the car with a number of friends in possession of drugs. The cops stop you and have probable cause to search the car. The drugs are found under the seat of the car.  The driver may not have known but in these cases it is often hard to get the driver out of the possession charge.  This is just everyday stuff.  The theories of mens rea are almost beside the point in such situations.  In real life it is a matter of who "looks" better or argues better..... Finally, on "knowledge" of drugs in a package, I did not want to get to technical in my first post but: To quote agains from some of my old notes:  "If an actor is aware of a high probablity of the existence of drugs in the package and he fails to investigate" then knowledge can be imputed to him/her."  This is a paraphrase from Dressler's crim law hornbook.  Actual knowledge is not required for a mens rea requirement, and that was my point in the original fact pattern.  This is essentially what I said in my first post.....  JM </div> -- Jerry Monaco's Philosophy, Politics, Culture Weblog is Shandean Postscripts to Politics, Philosophy, and Culture <a href="http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/">http://monacojerry.livejournal.com/ </a> His fiction, poetry, weblog is Hopeful Monsters: Fiction, Poetry, Memories <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/">http://www.livejournal.com/users/jerrymonaco/</a> Notes, Quotes, Images - From some of my reading and browsing <a href="http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/">http://www.livejournal.com/community/jerry_quotes/</a>