Though there had been lesser explosions under TR, FDR, and Nixon.
Are you trying to say that we should get rid of drunk driving laws? Because if laws are meant to protect people, driving drunk would certainly fall under that. People DIE because of it.
Also, as for statutory rape: every girl starts puberty at a different time. And when you even officially start puberty is up for debate. Is it when you get your period? When you grow pubes? Armpit hair? Acne? A general age of adulthood applies to everyone equally.
Pointing out that a law is poorly drafted is not the same as saying there shouldn’t even be such a law.
But you’re suggesting that strict liability might be inappropriate there? Allowing mens rea checks for drunk driving sounds like it could be disastrous. “I thought I was sober enough. . .”
I think the drunk driving example is a bad one, because virtually no one who drinks and drives actually lacks mens rea. The only way I can think of that something would qualify is if a driver literally forgot (or never knew) that he’d had alcohol recently before getting behind the wheel, which is not an argument that judges or juries would be likely to credit in most cases. Whether or not you know the limit itself doesn’t matter; all that matters is that you intended to drink the requisite amount of alcohol, and intended to drive afterwards.
I have a different question, why does the officers head gear change after the first panel? Is it because it isn’t a police officer, but instead some other office?
Yep, different kind of law enforcement. I think I must have been going for more of a “special agent” than a “police officer” look there. Was that necessary? Probably not.