My favorite part was her demented nanny-state logic whereby a law that results in chaining, caging, and fining the poor old lady trying to care for her sick grandkids must be "a good law because it has had the desired effect, i.e. a reduction in meth manufacturing and meth use." By Nina's logic, a law that says anyone suspected of using meth must immediately be shot would be a good law.
As always, the lesson is that the state poses more danger to you than it prevents. A secondary lesson is that law is a religion, and a particularly pathetic one.
2 comments:
I know responding to an October post is like yelling at entropy, but that's a pretty unfair simplification of her editorial. If your only definition of morality is providing even just symptomatic relief to grandchildren using more doses in one purchase than the law allows, then yes the prosecutor was unfair.
But even if you assume her editorial was entirely tactical you still have to address her point about the original purpose that the law served, and then balance it against the unwanted consequence.
In that respect it becomes somewhat trivial because the only issue is really why did the grandmother, who was probably ignorant of the specifics of the law, and even though she received what sounds like the most lenient punishment possible, being a first time offender, why did she suffer any actual financial or legal consequences at all?
It's that issue that's more enraging to me, since it allows situations like state highway speedtraps and arbitrary and poorly posted speed limits, solely to serve no other purpose than municipal income. It also provides incentives for towns to arbitrarily enforce and create new arcane rules at intersections with speed cameras.
Sorry for the tangent, but I think you and the prosecuter actually agree on the same thing, that the law as written is shit, and should be changed.
In what specific way did I unfairly simplify her editorial? Let's start there.
Post a Comment