This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind. Here's his
Mastodon, his
Twitter, and his
Instagram, as well.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
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.
The issue here is in part that the legal limit for drunk driving in (most of) the US is absurdly high. Sure, it might be a bad idea to have strict liability for the distinction between 0.075 and 0.084% BAC – but the 0.075% person probably shouldn’t be driving either.
The problem is that drunk driving is legal as long as you aren’t too drunk, which makes the line drawn more arbitrary.
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.