Message #69:
From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG
To:   "'Matthias Giessler'" 
Subject: Archaeological Vandalism -- "Knowingly" vs. "Wilfully"
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 97 10:26:00 MST
Encoding: 32 TEXT


From: Martin McAllister

I read your message on the SWA web site concerning the difficulties you had 
with your archaeological violation case involving the Arizona Antiquities 
Act and state lands.  Based on what I know of general vs. specific intent 
laws, the judge in the case was confused.  (General intent laws use the word 
"knowingly" while specific intent laws speak to committing the crime 
"wilfully".)  The following is a quote from our book Archeological Resource 
Protection concerning the difference between the two types of laws (Maricopa 
County Superior Court Judge and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Sherry Hutt 
is the author of this section of the book):

"A general intent offense only requires the government to show that the 
persons were acting of their free will, but not that they knew in their 
minds that it was wrong to proceed ... A specific intent offense requires 
that the government prove what was in the mind of the persons at the time 
they committed the act.  An example of such a specific intent offense would 
be conspiracy, in which the essence of the offense is the plan to accomplish 
the breaking of a law or laws without detection."

Citation -- the page number cite for that quote is page 43. I assume you 
have or are familiar with the book.  If not, it is Archeological Resource 
Protection by Sherry Hutt, Elwood W. Jones and Martin E. McAllister, 
published in 1992 by Preservation Press, now published by John Wiley and 
Sons, though I learned yesterday, currently out of stock.

Hope you find this of interest.
Martin