6 ms·
Do you really think people stung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"? That said, chances are most jurisdictions have some variatio
by repiret 4y ago
Do you really think people stung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"?
That said, chances are most jurisdictions have some variation of "dunk in public" that isn't as particular about the intoxicant. Even so, the criminal justice system hasn't proven itself to be an especially good solution to substance abusers.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> Do you really think people st[r]ung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"? No, but as you'll note that is not an element of the crime. It suffices to act in a way that "recklessly creates a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm".
- sumy23 4y agoI wouldn’t say heroin addicts act with purpose to cause inconvenience. They do cause inconvenience, but that’s not the purpose of their actions.
- thaumasiotes 4y agoHow is that a response to my comment? Why would it matter whether they have the purpose of causing inconvenience? It's not an element of the crime.
- uoaei 4y agoBecause that's the language of the very statutes cited above.
- c22 4y agoI guess this is why people hire lawyers...
- thaumasiotes 4y agoWell, sure, if you can't read more than 14 words in one sitting. But for everyone capable of reading entire sentences at once.. no, that's not the language of the statute, you would have to be intentionally misreading it to make that statement.
- sumy23 4y agoSorry, I’m not understanding what you’re seeing. The law says “purpose to cause” and then lists two things joined by an OR clause. But you’re arguing that the “purpose to cause” language is irrelevant. I don’t see that in my reading. Can you break it down for me?
- asveikau 4y agoIf people here, in a place where many people write logic for a living, cannot parse simple logic out of a statue, imagine how a judge or a jury would do it. I feel like often people in criminal justice do not understand meaning or intent of a statue and wing it, often slanting towards the side of punishing defendants. The law doesn't matter when your goal is to lock people up.
- sumy23 4y agoMaybe… however in the debate of this law, one side is saying “the law says you need purpose to cause” and the other side is saying “no it doesn’t. If you could read more than 14 words you would know that.” I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine an objective observer would find the former argument more compelling than the latter.
- dragonwriter 4y ago> however in the debate of this law, one side is saying “the law says you need purpose to cause” and the other side is saying “no it doesn’t. If you could read more than 14 words you would know that.” > I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine an objective observer would find the former argument more compelling than the latter Now, I decided not spend more time and money on law school about half way through when I decided I’d rather stay in technology, but I don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that the mental state requirement “with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof” (emphasis added) fails to apply to people recklessly causing a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm just as much a to those acting with purpose to cause such inconvenience, annoyance, and alarm.
- Brigand 4y agoThere is an OR in the statement, ie purpose is only one part of the condition.