|
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 who handles matters like yours.
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.
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.
|
|
How many times do we hear the phrase, “Well, we have to do *something*,” implying that something wrong now is better than something right later.
I prefer the phrase, “Something wrong now is strictly worse than nothing wrong later.”
Hmm, lemme reword that.
“Doing nothing wrong later is better than doing something wrong now!”
Remember the woman who answered the cell phone for her boyfriend and took messages for him, who got a 15 year, no parole sentence for drug dealing because the guys who were calling her boyfriend were arranging deals. The boyfriend turned states evidence and got 3-5 I think, but since she didn’t even know she was helping with drug deals, she knew nothing, and couldn’t provide any evidence…
You’re saying they were speaking in code, she didn’t know the code, and was writing down what they said, word for word? There is no way she can be liable for anything, other than bad taste in boyfriends.
Isn’t that what strict liability means? It doesn’t matter if she knew anything or not. She was an intermediary in deals.
Note that, for all the fuss about releasing non-violent drug offenders, most of the people incarcerated in the US are there for violent offenses that have existed in some form since feudal England. The problem is that the sentences are absurdly disproportionate to the harm done.