How long would you like other people to hold your mail?

@MichaelHall I am sure that is not legally relevant.

@jen, I am sure that intent is legally relevant. I am sure that the "reasonable person" doctrine is legally relevant. I am 50 years of hoarding other people's mail would be considered illegal.

@MichaelHall Yes, intent is legally relevant (see current answer). The reasonable-person doctrine is not part of this criminal prohibition like it would be for an offence with an "objective" mens rea (e.g. an offence based on a negligence standard of fault). Even for offences that do use a reasonable-person standard of fault, the reasonable-person standard does not depend on how long interfect would like other people to hold their mail. And your final sentence is an answer that should go in an answer, not a comment.

@jen, The reasonable person standard affects how long a reasonable person would expect another reasonable person, with the intent to return their mail, under "normal" circumstances, to take to do so. (Since 50 years in the example would, for most reasonable people, be considered grossly negligent.) My reason for asking was to ascertain whether the OP might be considered "reasonable". Why do i have to justify my comment to you?!. (I didn't comment on your answer...)

18 U.S. Code § 1702 is not based on reasonableness or gross negligence. It requires full subjective intent: "design to obstruct." The prosecution would get nowhere by showing that the mail was held for an unreasonable amount of time, and it would be an error in law if the judge directed the jury to consider that instead of requiring the prosecution to prove the requisite intent beyond a reasonable doubt. You are referring to a principle that is irrelevant in this context and would be grounds for appeal if used. And what interfect considers reasonable is of no relevance no matter the offence.

@jen, Is your point that holding another person's mail for 50 plus years would NOT meet the "design to obstruct" definition? (as long as the person claimed intent to deliver the following week)

@MichaelHall I am saying that this offence does not use a reasonableness standard. It is a fully subjective mens rea offence. If the prosecution fails to prove intent, the offence is not proved, even if they show the accused held the mail for an unreasonable amount of time. And if the prosecution proves intent (and of course the required actions), then the offence is proved, and there is no "reasonableness" defence available to the accused, even if they only held it for one day. And in any case, how long interfect expects people to hold their mail is irrelevant.

@jen, how would you prove the "intent" if a person held another's mail for 50 years and claimed that they planned to return it eventually?

@MichaelHall That is addressed in the answer and the other answer linked therein How do you prove a fact at issue in litigation?

Michael Hall's comment question about "How long would you like other people to hold your mail?" is a good one in terms of moral decision-making and the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule is not part of modern legal reasoning. Think about it. If I am prosecuted for selling crack to Bob, should it be a valid defense for me to claim that I'm ok with Bob selling crack to me and thus I should be acquitted under the Golden Rule? Certainly not! The law is supposed to be the same for everybody. This question is about what the law requires, not what a Good Boy Scout (tm) would do under the circumstances.

Well, it feels to me as if the counselors are being a bit pedantic with the legalese. "Intent" cannot be proven to the same extent as a cold hard fact, and it would seem to the lay person that it is entirely unreasonable to hold someone's mail for 50 years, therefore I would argue to a jury that the intent was to deprive them of their mail. Objective, subjective, mens rea, or whatever...

@MichaelHall If someone does not expect to receive any correspondence that would require them to respond in less than 7 days, and thus doesn't even bother to look at mail they receive during the week (which they expect will be addressed either to them or to nobody in particular) until the weekend, would the act of taking mail from their postbox and moving it to a pile of mail they'll look at over the weekend constitute any crime if the box happened to contain mail addressed to someone else?

@MichaelHall On a related note, if someone receives mail at an inconvenient location (e.g. they're in a rural area, and would need to drive downtown to retrieve their mail) which they visit once per week, would they have a legal obligation to inspect their box for misdelivered mail before taking its contents home, or return to the post office sooner than normal if it contained misdelivered mail?

@supercat, what you have described is perfectly "reasonable", so what is your point in asking me this?