Final answer:
Crimes mala prohibita are punishable without criminal intent, but exceptions exist such as the exclusionary rule's "good faith" and "inevitable discovery" exceptions. Public discourse and changing social perspectives can also influence the perception and criminal status of certain behaviors.
Step-by-step explanation:
Crimes mala prohibita, which are actions that are criminalized not because they are inherently evil but because they are prohibited by law, generally do not require criminal intent for someone to be charged and punished. However, there are exceptions to this principle. One key principle in the U.S. legal system is the exclusionary rule, established by the Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio. This rule usually prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. Nonetheless, there are notable exceptions to this rule, such as the "good faith" exception, where evidence mistaken to be legally obtained by law enforcement can still be utilized, and the "inevitable discovery" exception, which allows the use of evidence that would have eventually been found through legal means.
Another instance of exceptions in the context of criminal intent relates to victimless crimes. Although these activities, like underage drinking or prostitution, are deemed illegal, they don't always result in harm to others, leading to debate over whether these actions should be criminalized. This is an example of where the criminal nature of actions is decided through public discourse and can evolve over time.
Similarly, while deviance is a violation of social norms, not all deviant activities are criminally punishable, and not all crimes may be considered "bad" in a moral sense. For instance, acts of civil disobedience by civil rights activists were technically crimes but are now viewed as steps toward social progress. This demonstrates that our understanding of what behaviors should be considered criminal and punished is subject to change and interpretation.