Disable ads (and more) with a membership for a one time $2.99 payment
In a defense against identity deception, which of the following is true?
It is valid to argue no one was harmed
Proving intent greatly reduces charges
It is false that stating no one was harmed is a valid defense
Identity deception only applies to financial crimes
The correct answer is: It is false that stating no one was harmed is a valid defense
Stating that no one was harmed is not considered a valid defense against identity deception because such offenses can infringe upon the law and individual rights, irrespective of actual harm. Identity deception typically involves the unlawful use of another person's identifying information, and it is treated seriously by legal systems. The essence of the crime lies in the act of deception itself, which is inherently harmful, regardless of the outcome or whether the victim realizes the harm. The law encompasses broader implications of identity deception beyond just tangible harm to a particular individual; it undermines trust and can have far-reaching consequences for victims and society. Therefore, the assertion that a lack of harm can absolve someone from responsibility for identity deception is fundamentally flawed, making this understanding crucial in navigating legal defenses related to the crime.