law school is fun sometimes

Mar 22, 2011 01:03

more art ¯\(°_0)/¯ WIP this time.

clickkkk )

odd nauseum, art, tl;dr, ms. fancy lawyerpants

Leave a comment

Comments 3

otana March 22 2011, 11:26:34 UTC
Oh man, that's interesting.

My guess, as a completely non-qualified layperson, would be that in the former case she'd be guilty of attempt to smuggle. I mean, if a guy tried to smuggle heroin and customs found out it was cornstarch, he'd likely still get hit with "god damn it you're stupid and also trying to break the law" charges.

The latter ... man, I don't know. I would suggest if the law no longer exists then she wouldn't be charged? As far as customs would be concerned, she just had lace in her pocket and since there's no law about carrying lace (or declaring an item that isn't affected by customs) then she'd be home free.

I WOULD BE AN AWESOME LAWYER /shoots self

How is stuff going, anyway?

Reply

justsomechick March 22 2011, 14:32:49 UTC
Those two answers are the general consensus, yes. :D The problem - which is what the problem is meant to illustrate - is that in both cases, the only thing done on her part is INTEND to do something, and yet we would think the outcome should be different between the two. Is it fair to punish her for intending to commit a crime in the first instance, but not in the second? Why should the technical existence of a law restricting the import of that specific product keep her from being guilty of smuggling "generally"? (There is no crime of "general smuggling," but it feels intuitive to apply something like that here.)

There's no answer to the hypothetical, it's just fun to think about 8D

Stuff is going okay. The year is starting to wind down. Exams are in a month. hrrrrgh 9_6

Reply

otana March 23 2011, 21:57:04 UTC
That's a really good point. It's really interesting, I've been sharing it with other people. Makes me glad I'm not in law though, my brain hurts already. XD

Reply


Leave a comment

Up