Amen to that.
Amen to that.
What would be the criteria upon which law enforcement would make the distinction between those two? What would be the threshold between 'this was accidental exposure' and 'this was deliberate' ? Should law enforcement go indicting everyone who has pictures of underage persons in suggestive poses in their browser cache (provided there is existing probable cause in any case)? Or should law enforcement also go deeper and look for the reasons the pictures were there before deciding someone is suspected of being a sex-offender?
That is why entrapment is forbidden in a lot of countries in the world. It is tempting people who might otherwise never commit such a crime into commiting a crime. It is inventing/creating criminals and that is not a thing we as citizens should condone of our respective law enforcement agencies.
You both misunderstood.
What I said was she should not be banned from driving straight away. Until she does something that shows her incapacity to function properly in traffic, it would not be fair to her to ban her from driving, because it -would- be a form of punishment. Maybe not intentional, but it would surely be perceived that way.
Now the moment she causes an accident, having been forwarned by her medical specialist(s), she would be culpable. Not before.
In that case, maybe it is good that I am not a legal professional, because I would under virtually no circumstance follow or obey an unjust law. As a citizen, I believe it is even my duty to point them out to my peers and have them changed through the democratic process.
The law is not just the law.
There is the law and the intent behind that law.
Laws are made for specific purposes and with a specific intention in mind. Whether or not a law serves its specific purposes and whether or not it serves that intention are wholly dependant on its wording. If the wording is insufficiently clear as to the intent behind its purpose it can never be properly understood or interpreted by legal officers and scholars. If the wording leaves insufficient room for those legal professionals to apply it properly in all circumstances the law can never be effective.
For example, if a law is made against drunk driving, then that is the intent and purpose behind that law. If that law however is worded in such a fashion that it provides both minimum and maximum penalties, there is no room for the judge to do his work properly as a legal professional, because metaphorically speaking, his hands are tied. The law does not allow for cases that do not fit the intent behind it but do fit the criteria for the purpose that it was made to serve. A person whose (non-alcoholic) drink was spiked with GHB and who causes an accident for example would legally be guilty of drunk driving, but would not be responsible for his own actions. However, because of the way the law is worded, the judge would still either have to sanction him with the minimum sentence or find him not guilty. Of course, this example is wholly exaggerated, but hopefully it explains the dangers of strict liability laws and the concept of minimum sentences in legislation.
I can understand why you would say that. However, punishing her for having a medical condition is an injustice that trumps (in my opinion at least) any injustice she may cause while driving and that is exactly what would happen If the justice system were to ban her from driving. She would be punished for something she has virtually no control over. The fact that her baseline blood alcohol level is over the limit does not automatically mean she is incapable of functioning properly in traffic. This woman has a medical condition that skews the entire correlation between the amount of alcohol in her breath and the amount of alcohol in her blood. Medical conditions are the domain of medical professionals, not the justice system and therefore the latter should have virtually no say in the matter. Since medical professionals cannot - in most cases at least - legally prevent their patients from going against their medical advice that is the only thing they can do: advise their patients on their medical condition and the potential consequences of going against that advice. It is only after going against medical advice that the justice system can come in.
We, as a people, should always be wary of any kind of legislation that presumes guilt over innocence.
The point you're missing is that due to her condition being part of her all her life her natural blood alcohol level is well above 0.00 like the rest of us. So for her she's not impaired by what would make most of us puke our guts out and be in a coma, because her body naturally adapted to it.
Actually, 0.00 is not the actual natural blood alcohol level. Ethanol is produced as part of the sugar metabolism, so there is always a tiny concentration of alcohol in everyone's blood and just like with this woman, that level will vary over the day. The difference is in the magnitude.
I don't know how it is with a jury system (and whether that would apply at all in this case), but a good judge will know the law inside and out and will know how to apply good common sense while still adhering to the law.
Adhering to the law for the sake of the law is not applying good common sense.
That goes for -all- strict liability laws.
I would not be suprised if that were the case. As I already mentioned before, the breathalizer test acts on the premise that there is a known correlation between the amount of alcohol in somene's breath and the amount of alcohol in that person's blood.
Funny bit of trivia: there are baking ingredients like certain flavours that, if aersolized into the mouth, will skew that breathalizer test. You would not actually be intoxicated, but the test would show that you were.
From the first time I ever read about breathalizer tests and got into the little technical details of them I noticed that a good defense attorney would be able to defeat such a test easily, by simply questioning the validity of the assumptions about a correlation between the amount of alcohol in someone's breath and the amount of alcohol in his or her blood.
Strict liability offenses are an affront to justice and should be done away sooner rather than later.
This woman should not take the blame for a medical condition that she did not know about. Getting a flat tire is not necessarily the same as getting in an accident. And even if she had caused an accident, she cannot be blamed for it by her blood alcohol levels alone, because apparently she was functioning normally even when the breathalizer tests showed she had a blood alcohol level of between 0.3 and 0.4.
If I were a defense attorney I would go to great lengths to show that the premise of the correlation between the amount of alcohol in someone's breath and his/her actual blood alcohol level is false in his/her case. That can be easily proven by taking an actual blood test. If that test shows that the actual promillage of alcohol in her blood is much lower than would be expected from the breathalizer test alone, the breathalizer test is a false positive and an any arguments following from that breathalizer test are by definition false as well.
Should this woman be driving? That is not for me, you or any judge to decide. Only a medical professional can advise this woman on that matter. It is up to her to decide what she does with that advice.
A remake of Penguin Adventure with Tux?
Censorship, or rather, repression of information of any kind is a danger to freedom and therefore a danger to our civilized society. It always reminds me of one of the quotes in SMAC:
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. "
True in the game, but true in real life as well.
Jailing people for simply visiting a site is ludicrous. True, it may prevent some black sheep from turning into even blacker sheep, but it will also prevent other people who may have a perfectly valid reason, for example journalists, from doing research and in depth-investigation into the darker corners of society.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells down by the seashore.