The Rule Of Law Over The Rule Of Reason
from the stop-the-insanity dept
While not directly a tech/business related story, Jonny sent in this rather disturbing story of a grandmother arrested in Indiana for buying two whole boxes of cold medicine in less than a week. As you're probably aware, most states have greatly limited the ability to buy cold medicine that contains pseudoephedrine, the ingredient that makes most cold medicines effective -- but also a key ingredient used in making meth. So, rather than deal with the growing meth problem head on, many politicians sought to annoy pretty much anyone with a serious cold by making it quite difficult to get any drug that actually contains useful medicine.Apparently, the Indiana law forbids buying more than 3.0 grams of the stuff in a single week, and the two boxes of cold medicine exceeded that amount. The end result? Police show up at the woman's house and arrest her -- and then keep defending the arrest, citing meth abuse, even as everyone admits that this woman was not making meth:
"I feel for her, but if she could go to one of the area hospitals and see a baby born to a meth-addicted mother ..."It's difficult to see what that has to do with anything considering that everyone knows this woman had no intention of making meth. The whole thing is ridiculous, but is symptomatic of a problem that we're seeing all too often, where the focus is on enforcing poorly thought out laws, to ridiculous consequences, with no attempt to ever look at the negative consequences and seeing if the original law made any sense in the first place.
We've discussed this in the past with regards to other laws as well. In business, if you plan a new initiative, you have metrics and you check to see if you accomplish them, and you monitor negative effects of what you do as well. So why don't politicians ever do this? When they pass a law to ban spam, increase copyright duration or take away privacy for some reason or another, why are politicians never asked to put in place benchmarks to see if the laws actually do what they promise? Why aren't there any plans for a change or a removal of the law if it turns out to do more harm than good? Certainly, by this point in time, there's a better process to creating regulations than simply saying what they're intended to do without ever bothering to check to see if those goals are achieved?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arrests, grandmother, meth, pseudoephidrine
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
SHAME !!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, But Who Would Vote For It?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Silly Law enforcement
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8278533.stm
Two policewomen who look after each others children when not on duty have found that they need to register officially as childminders because reciprocal childcare amounts to working for "reward"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Silly Law enforcement
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
So why didn't they just follow the law and register LIKE EVERYONE ELSE? I am so sick of people wanting more and more laws passed but then not wanting them to apply to everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, But Who Would Vote For It?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are you suggesting that women should be above the law or would you be saying the same thing if the person had been a man? How about if she was a little younger and a member of a motorcycle club?
Even worse than passing bad laws is applying them selectively.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Think of the children!
Besides, it is a woman's body and if she wants to have an abortion or do drugs/smoke/drink while pregnant that is her choice. After all, a fetus is not a person, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who is keeping count ?
I would like to know, and the article did not say, how do they keep track of the cold medicine purchased ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What we need are more laws to turn honest people into criminals. It's not like we can't afford to put a few more people into jail is it?
Seriously though, what we need are less laws and especially less stupid laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Think of the children!
You left out overeating and other health compromising or risky behaviors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Except they didn't, did they? They arrested her for breaking the law. When someone robs a bank to get mortgage money, they aren't arrested for "having a home and needing to make payments", they're arrested for "robbing a bank".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unintended (?) consequences
Now, it might be easy to say "just take another one", but one of the tricky things about these formulations that what works for one person doesn't work for another. Many allergy sufferers wind up working their way through a dozen or more experiments before they find one that works for them (and hopefully doesn't make them so sleepy that they can't function). So every time one of these drugs disappears from the market, all the people taking it get to run a series of tests on themselves until they find something that works -- if they can.
And meanwhile, of course, the net impact on the people who are making meth is zero. They couldn't possibly care less, and are not inconvenienced in the slightest. The whole episode is pointless, useless theater contrived by politicians who can babble nonsense like "taking the drug problem seriously" while they (of course) do everything that they can to defund the clinics that actually have some real impact on the issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Truly mind bending.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Contact info for the 'thorities involved
P. O. Box 249
Newport, IN. 47966-0249
(800) 340-8155
Ext: 125 Prosecutor Nina Alexander
Sheriff's Office
201 Cherry St.
Terre Haute, IN 47807
812-462-3226
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I sure did. Since when is ignorance of the law a defense?
What we need are more laws to turn honest people into criminals. It's not like we can't afford to put a few more people into jail is it?
The criminal justice system is a HUGE business in the US. In the minds of most people in the US, there is no such thing as spending too much on it. Until it comes after them or someone they care about, that is. Then they want selective enforcement.
Seriously though, what we need are less laws and especially less stupid laws.
Agreed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Purchased one, went to back of queue -reappeared at counter seconds later and purchased the other. Nobody batted an eyelid. Very stupid and very annoying. I could just as easily have bought it the next day but would have caused more inconvenience. Where is the sense in this!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
it's because it's expensive and borderline impossible to actually do without taking all sorts of [also expensive] courses.
also I'm fairly sure the point was actually not that the law shouldn't apply to everyone, but that stupid laws shouldn't be made in the first place, and that the laws made should be enforced in a way that actually makes sense.
there is no sane reason why the above arrangement requires government regulation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Law was obviously written by a single/childless legislator
Psuedophed makes a 12-hour dose that contains 120mg per pill. If my wife, my older son and myself were all sick needing a decongestant for a week, we'd use 42 pills (3 ppl x 2 pills per day x 7 days). That's 5.04 grams. Add in a children's dosage for my 8 year old, and heck... we might even hit 6 grams a week. Looks like it would be jail time for me... :-)
I guess according to Indiana law, they'd rather encourage the spread of illness by forcing multiple people to make multiple trips to the store to keep themselves snot free. What could possibly go wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is nothing new
Legalize it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Law was obviously written by a single/childless legislator
Go to the doctor and get a legal prescription.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Law.
On a more serious note, what is needed is consequences for bad laws. Has common sense been override? Has people lost critical thinking in law enforcement? Politicians don't pay attention to these little details?
I wonder if politicians ever get feed back from the laws they pass or wait till they explode in some scandal to take action.
We live in an age were we could and should do better, where benchmarks should exist and laws should be written with provisions that would force congress to act on them if they don't achieve what they were supposed to do. The government sure have the human and technological resources to do it, why they don't? There should be some sort of accountability for laws passed they are not even doing the minimum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In *business* school we *learn* to do this, but is it always or even usually done? I think not--and for many of the same reasons as politicians. Because the "change agent" responsible for the initiative gets paid or rewarded (by the leadership or public) for making the initiative happen, not based on the impact years later. In fact, they often have an incentive to hide the negative effects if general perception is that they made a positive impact. Think "security theater" as a corollary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who is keeping count ?
Here in Indiana, if you buy one of those medicines, you have to show ID and sign a form that, I believe, includes not only your name but your address and phone number. I'm not completely sure what all it includes as I stopped buying those kinds of medicine after this law went into effect. My cousin had a sick husband and kid once and they wouldn't sell her both the adult and the children's kind because it was too much. She had to go home and send her sick husband to the store to get his medicine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thats because businesses constantly strive to be more effective and more efficient. Government constantly strives to become more powerful and to abuse the power it has. Asking why don't politicians do this is like asking why don't dogs meow? Simply there is no mechanism in our government for reevaluation of laws without some poor schmuck getting abused by the law and making a supreme court case out of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You act surprised?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Law was obviously written by a single/childless legislator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Acquital.
Is like something is slowly and silently taking off all the mechanism that make part of checks and balances and making society impotent against their own governance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Law was obviously written by a single/childless legislator
...
Which is exactly what the drug company lobbiests want. I would love to see how much of the lawmaker's income came from these companies. If over-the-counter meds are cutting into your sales of prescription meds, you can always increase your sales by forcing the OTC meds off the market or making them illegal to buy in any useful quantity. It's easy, just buy a few lawmakers and feed them the 'drug-making' or 'protect the children' excuse and there you go.
Bam, said the lady!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The typical argument against JN is that it may lead to the guilty being let free. But this is a silly and dangerous argument. The law profession itself embraces the saying ""It's better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer."
For more info on Jury Nullification, refer to the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't sell it ...
> amounts, and to check medication labels [from article]
This has always baffled me. It is okay for a pharmacy to sell you the drugs, but not okay for you to buy them. Instead of having the pharmacist say, "whoops, you can't purchase this because you've already bought one this week," it escalates to arrest. Idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
These cases of naked aggression by "law enforcement" against average, harmless people make me wonder if there truly is a "moral panic" impetus coming from the people driving this insanity. Or is the perpetuation of legal hostility to the general populace simply the fulfillment of a for-profit business model in public service.
In either case, we (the normal people) are the victims, and the suckers.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kotos" -- The Simpsons, 1996
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Law was obviously written by a single/childless legislator
That's not reality for most people in this country. Reality for most people is that they don't have insurance, or have expensive, poor insurance which won't cover such visits -- which means that they have to pay for the visit AND pay for the meds. Reality is that getting time off from jobs that they can't afford to lose can be tough. Reality is that trying to get in to see a doctor can mean a wait of months -- unless of course they allow their condition to deteriorate to the point where it's an emergency, whereupon they can add to the hopeless overcrowding now commonplace in many ERs. Reality is that the aggregate result of all this is that more people stay sick for more time, which, in the end, not only costs us more as a society, but increases the collective health risk, since of course we all come into contact with each other -- including the people who are working while sick because they have little choice.
And as I pointed out previously, NONE of this has the slightest impact on actual drug dealers. I'm certain they're laughing at all this with mocking derision, and they should be: it's the appropriate response to this farsical charade.
And joining them in the chorus are the big pharmaceutical companies, who are of course delighted to increase their already-enormous profits by shifting any many medications as possible from over-the-counter to prescription status, especially when they need not take any overt action and can simply assert that such changes were mandated by law -- thus they are only being Good Corporate Citizens by complying in full (wink wink).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
Both these cases are ridiculous but not surprising. The issue is that due to the efforts of the legal proffession, among others, to find loopholes in every piece of legislation it means that the legislators are forever trying to fill all the gaps, or to create such broad legisltation that it can cover everything. The police are then encouraged by their legal advisors to do everything exactly by the book in order to avoid invalidating a case, or being seen to bend the rules in favour of one party instead of another. This then means that the take the broad legislation and apply it to every circumstance that it can cover, which goes far beyond the spirity of the law but is technically the correct course of action.
We've abandoned common sense and reason on these issues. Its all about following the letter of the law and obeying orders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Intent
Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions, law enforcement (police) are being given less and less field discretion to avoid silliness. If the DIDN'T arrest this person, they might be subject to discipline or dismissal. I don't know that to be the case here, of course, but it is the case all too commonly now. As a result, I find less fault with the arresting officers than with the politicians passing draconian laws with tons of unintended consequences, and with the prosecutors who insist on seeing these silly things through to make some kind of political or societal point. The fact is if our politicians were public servants rather than career serial opportunists (hello universal term limits...PLEASE) they might read and think about these things before casting a vote. Alas, we see knee-jerk legislating going on from Congress to the local school board.
This ain't the way it's supposed to be, folks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Benchmarks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Benchmarks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Law was obviously written by a single/childless legislator
No, for a prescription drug instead. Duh! You had to be told that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_re_us/us_baby_sitter_backlash_mich
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Laws
[ link to this | view in thread ]
On a more sane side...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090930/ap_on_re_us/us_baby_sitter_backlash_mich
The good news is the representatives sound like they are using common sense, admitting the law is poor, and are actively working to change the legislation. A nice change of pace, no?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Law was obviously written by a single/childless legislator
You sound like one of those socialist Obama-nuts. Well here's an idea for you hippie: get a job. Besides that we already have free health care for those who truly can't afford it: just go to the hospital emergency room. You aren't working anyway, so the wait shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience (unless you just can't wait to get back to your favorite street corner or bar). The last thing I want is for the government to tax me to take care of other people. It's my money, MINE!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jonny
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Intent
The law there clearly says it's illegal to buy that much in less than a week. So you're saying that she didn't intend to buy that second box, that it was an accident of some sort? I doubt that was the case. I'd say here actions were probably deliberate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Interesting, so following that line of reasoning, this woman was arrested for "having a cold".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Using MarksAngel's reasoning, yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Intent
Yes, she deliberately broke a law. In so doing she is inadvertently illustrating once again that the law and law enforcement does not always work for the people, and in my opinion only works for people on occasion by mere coincidence.
If civil disobedience were not all but outlawed in the fallout of the 60's, the people would have clear recourse for addressing imbecile, hostile tyrannical laws such as this.
What recourse do we have now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"
original law made any sense in the first place.
"
The law is a good invention
however paved with good intension.
The road to hell
so paved as well
Have you ever noticed how the police will investigate the real crooks for months or years before moving in to halt the action that is going down. But if one of their frat brothers has a financial problem to the extent that he needs quick action on his dying aunts will, a sudden arrest of the coughing aunt could just tip her over the edge. Right?
"
Go pick her up right now. If you suspect that she has a concealed box-opener in her snuff-box then shoot to kill
; ask questions at the reading of her will.
"
Just kidding guys! Just a friendly laugh. Don't put the GPS on my car, huh.
Thanks, guys
!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Laugh-in
"
original law made any sense in the first place.
"
The law is a good invention
however paved with good intension.
The road to hell
so paved as well
Have you ever noticed how the police will investigate the real crooks for months or years before moving in to halt the action that is going down. But if one of their frat brothers has a financial problem to the extent that he needs quick action on his dying aunts will, a sudden arrest of the coughing aunt could just tip her over the edge. Right?
"
Go pick her up right now. If you suspect that she has a concealed box-opener in her snuff-box then shoot to kill
; ask questions at the reading of her will.
"
Just kidding guys! Just a friendly laugh. Don't put the GPS on my car, huh.
Thanks, guys
!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The law actually does make some sense. I used to live in Indiana and there is a HUGE meth problem there. The government needs to tackle it from more than one angle one is actual tracking it down, and another is limiting supply of critical ingredients.
That said, the police were dumbasses in this case. They need to think just a little bit before arresting an old lady. Go to her home tell her that she bought more of the drug than was allowed and ask to do a quick search of her home. After looking in the basement and seeing nothing noteworthy they should have apologized and left. They could have even offered to help make her feel better instead of arresting her.
There are 3 branches of government in this country. The legislature makes the laws. The executive brance enforces those laws. the judicial branch judges those laws. Police are not required to enforce the letter of the law because they are a check on legislative abuse of power. So every police officer can choose not to arrest someone who broke the law but didn't cause any harm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The difference between a cop and a criminal is .... the cop hasnt gotten caught yet.... GRIN ... old joke ... an officer of the law told it to me
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Oh, so you're saying that the executive branch (police) also has the ability to judge the laws, eh? I always thought that was reserved to the judicial branch. In fact, I didn't even know that cops had the legal training to do so competently and that was why it was left up to courts and judges with legal training. I guess there's something to be learned every day here on Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And broken the law. You keep leaving that part out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law was obviously written by a single/childless legislator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
I'd say that needs to be reduced, but I'm betting that there hasn't been any great public outcry to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I read a story the other day about a guy who was sentenced to life in prison just for "scratching an itch". Can you imagine that? What is this world coming to?
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that his "scratching" involved sex with underage children, but still...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You're presuming that this law -- even if scrupulously enforced -- will actually have such an effect. There is no evidence of any kind supporting that assertion.
"Professional" meth labs do not rely on one-off purchases of raw materials: that's time-consuming, expensive, risky (in part because of the repetitive nature of the process), slow, and doesn't yield nearly enough material. The pros are buying this stuff in bulk: because they can, because it's cheaper, because it's more efficient, and because there's less aggregate risk.
The only actual tangible result of such laws is to provide campaign fodder for politicians who wish to make it appear that they've done something useful. And of course it really does work, because there are so many clueless morons out there who actually BELIEVE this tripe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Four cylinder engines, in general, get better gas mileage than 6 cylinder engines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
For example, if a police officer's commander ordered him or her to open fire on group of kids in daycare, I would damn well hope they would tell that authority to go fuck themselves.
What the hell kind of mentality allowed the police to deem the arrest of this woman as appropriate response to her actions?
If all police officers must conduct themselves in this manner due to procedure, then we are better off eliminating the police on salaries and going with full robotic justice.. not even robocop.. just machines. After all just being human might allow for moral considerations, which would have no place in the legal system or its armed forces.
And I'm sure this case I'm spelling out is at least partially true... there no room for "interpretation" on the streets. This is why I fundamentally reject all laws defining "victimless crimes" as hostile to the public they are purported to serve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
Police have always been given the option to use their discretion, these knuckleheads failed to use it and makes their dept and all cops look like dicks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since they passed so many laws that no single person can possibly know about them all, even if all they did was study it on a daily basis, and the laws they're passing defy common sense and fair play to benefit some at the expense of everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
The children don't understand it and are apparently quite upset.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Intent
Where? Show me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Intent
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is nothing new
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
And what if she refuses to allow the search? Lots of innocent people, including myself, would -- and would be entirely within our rights to do so. What then?
Don't you think it's a bit extreme to even be subjected to a search for two boxes of cold medicine? These restrictions on cold medicine are stupid, stupid, stupid. They are easy to bypass and hinder nobody.
Case in point -- because of these laws, the only allergy medicine on the market that works for me and doesn't give me terrible side effects is no longer manufactured. I asked the company, and they said that because of the laws, sales had fallen to the point where it's not worth making the stuff anymore.
So, knowing that, I stocked up by getting online and having people around the world buy boxers of it and mail it to me. I have plenty now. If I were a meth cook, I could do the exact same thing to get my pseudoephedrine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the law is immoral and trivial to break by accident, therefore at least some additional thought and compassion should be shown when applying it.
Personally? It's one of the handfuls of laws that are so egregious that they should be broken by any citizen who has any respect for the rule of law. It's these kinds of things that are destroying respect for the law and the only way they ever get changed is when enough normal people violate them routinely.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
We need broad laws that make sence, not specific laws with loopholes. Tax law could be handled quickly with a "you make X you pay Y - credits and not care how you made your money. Instead we get situations where the top guy at a company pays 16% and his workforce pays 32%+ because hes taxed differently on his income.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Totally Ineffective
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, But Who Would Vote For It?
The only thing the lawmakers do is, surprise, make new laws. Getting rid of stuff is not on the priority list.
I guess it's not sexy ( = obscure reference to canadian politics about worldwide medical isotope shortage ).
--GJ--
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Intent
Too ignorant or lazy to use Google?
http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2005/SE/SE0444.1.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Totally Ineffective
Hey, I've got an idea: Let's just make everything illegal then and let officers use selective enforcement at "their discretion".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
another way for the war on drugs to be justified in tiles of cut backs
arse-holes!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Totally Ineffective
Oh oh, I guess the cops will now be keeping an eye out for empty 2 L soft drink bottles, possession of which will be evidence of meth production. I wonder if they can seize people's homes under drug forfeiture laws if 2 L bottles are spotted in their trash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since they passed so many laws that no single person can possibly know about them all,
Well now, I know you're a lawyer, so how about providing a legal citation for that? When was the last time you went into court and declared to the judge "Your Honor, my client pleads innocent by reason of ignorance"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Intent
Kind of like the fellow whose intent was not to commit a crime, but to pay his mortgage, eh? It was just an unfortunate coincidence that bank robbery also happened to be illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent
Someone who says "I am going to rob a bank" - for whatever reason - is de facto intending to commit a crime. Someone who says "I'm going to buy legal medicine" is not intending to commit a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent
How so? The law clearly stated that her actions were illegal so how could they "appear" otherwise to her?
those controlling the distribution of the substance (her local shop) provided her the product in exchange for the dollars.
So? That doesn't mean they were aware of her criminal intentions. The airlines provided legal tickets to the 9/11 terrorists "in exchange for the dollars". By your reasoning that should excuse the terrorists' actions. I disagree.
Someone who says "I'm going to buy legal medicine" is not intending to commit a crime.
Someone who says "I'm going to violate the law to obtain an illegal amount of a chemical substance in the hopes that I don't get caught" is intending to commit a crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent
Also, your grammatical structure is a mess. By writing "I'm going to violate the law to obtain an illegal amount of a chemical substance in the hopes that I don't get caught" I believe you *intend* to say "I'm going to violate the law IN ORDER to obtain an illegal amount of a chemical substance, WITH the hope that I don't get caught" Your sentence is flawed as is your point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not just the daft laws - it's the daft police
Why? Because those fees pay for the people who make surprise visits and monthly inspections and Oklahoma has a bad track record for finding violations, because they don't have enough well-trained people.
They get new people and just have to throw them out there, and they can't afford to hire as many as they need. So providers who are cutting corners on care get a free ride on the abuse and neglect that they dole out. :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent
Sure she did. She just thought she'd get away with it.
We can argue whether it is a legitimate excuse...
Until you can provide a legal citation supporting your position that proclaimed ignorance of the law is a legal defense in court, I saying that you're just making stuff up.
Also, your grammatical structure is a mess.
As a last resort, resort to ad-hominem attacks, eh? That's a sure sign of a weak argument.
...I believe you *intend* to say...
Again, your beliefs are faulty. I wrote what I intended to write and the grammatical structure was a deliberate characterization. That, however, seems to have gone right over your head.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law was obviously written by a single/childless legislator
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Intent
1. You are assuming that she knew. I am assuming she didn't. Since he has no record prior to or following this incident (according to all the articles I found on this case) and seems stunned by the whole thing, it's pretty apparent that she didn't know. The "Meth Watch" signs the Star-Tribune article mentioned were in place are generic, do not mention the gram limits and do not mention products by brand name. They are of no help. There is every reason to assume that this woman did not know of the specific limit and/or how the two different products she bought 6 days apart factored into any transgression, and/or the time limit specified by the law.
2. You wrote "...legal citation supporting your position that proclaimed ignorance of the law is a legal defense in court." Firstly, as I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer, so I shan't be pumping out any legal citations. Moreover, if you read carefully, or even not so carefully, you'll clearly see that this is NOT my position. I actually note above that ignorance of the law may not be an excuse at all. My POINT is that INTENT should be factored in to the establishment of criminality. This law excludes an intent clause, which is a big part of the problem. If the law had said (as it should) purchase of more than 3g within 7 days "with intent to manufacture or aid in the manufacturing of an illegal substance," then this poor lady would not have had per picture on the front page of the local paper, as she did. My whole point (and the subject of my thread, incidentally) is intent, not ignorance of the law is an excuse.
3. As for your grammar, it's not ad hominem when it goes directly to the point of the argument. The example you gave was so poorly constructed that it is easily misconstrued and would completely confuse the base of the discussion. As written, your sentence actually means that because someone hoped they wouldn't get caught, they violated a law which requires them to obtain illegal amounts of a chemical substance. Their motivation was the hope the wouldn't get caught, and the law the violated was the "law to obtain an illegal amount." Huh?!?! Adverbs, objects, antecedents and punctuation matter. We all have typos and misspellings, to be sure. I sure do. But yours was a misconstruction resulting in you unknowingly confusing your point. If it was deliberate as you say, then you deliberately intended to confuse your own point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar48/ch4.html
(see section 14.7 -- it's hard to find)
The Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion just last month in a differnet, similar case, in which the court reversed a conviction against a woman convicted under the same law under similar cirumstances. The court rejected a number of the defendant's arguments, but did accept one -- they found the government had not proven that the defendant acted knowingly or itnentionally. Perhaps that court case will be of some help to Ms. Harpold, and may also emphasize for Indiana police and prosecutors that knowledge/intent is an essential element of the offense.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09090901par.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]