I don’t understand this at all. They were you. You did them. That person may not be the person you are now, and it may not be the person you want to be, but you did them. It wasn’t anybody else.
Much as I might like y’all to believe otherwise…nurses are not angels. Nurses are human beings, who have all the failings of human beings…and greater access to better drugs. This idea that the fact that she is a nurse and therefore could only have done this because she was powerless is ridiculous.
And the law absolutely *does *recognize when people are not in control of their faculties, and instead of sending those people to jail, it sends them to mental health facilities for treatment. While there are some judges who will send some addicts to some treatment facilities for some drugs instead of punishing them for some crimes, it’s by no means universal. Some judges will send all addicts to jail for all crimes. Some judges will send addicts to treatment instead of jail for some crimes but jail for others. So yeah, sometimes addicts ARE considered to have been in control of themselves enough not to have committed their crimes. Was this woman? I have no idea. But I bet the judge will spend some time trying to figure it out, not simply assume she wasn’t.
Except for statutory rape.
Our entire legal system is predicated on choice, intent, and motive, Cyningablod. The fact that you don’t understand that (and keep coming up with hypotheticals that disprove the very point you’re trying to make) just shows that you’re waving big words around without truly understanding them.
Okay, Pollyanna, everybody is always sweetness and light and goodness and selflessness and would never hurt any other person except when the bad, bad drugs make them by taking away their free will and ability to choose.
I smoked for years. Nicotine, while legal, is apparently more addictive than some illegal drugs. So while I obviously do not have exactly the same insight as someone who couldn’t buy their drug of choice from the corner store, I don’t have *zero *personal experience with the subject.
I know what it felt like to “need” a drug so badly it felt like I was going to crawl out of my skin, and I know what I occasionally did to get it when I had no other option. I can also firmly tell you that no matter what kind of shape I was in, if you put a pack of cigarettes in front of me and said, “You can smoke these, but if you do, I’m going to stab some stranger in another room,” I’d have left the damn things on the fucking table.
And one or two others. But strict liabiility offenses are exceptionally rare.
Pfft, I bet this guy doesn’t even care how his beer tastes.
Really? So how can cops and judges and lawmakers maintain that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”?
:dubious:
It’s called figurative language.
Please show me where I used hypotheticals that undermine my point(s).
And what “big words” am I waving around? If anything I’ve written strikes you as a big word, then you need to spend more time with a dictionary.
Right. Because the opposite of a horrific worldview would necessarily be “Pollyanna” and full-on “sweetness and light and goodness”. No room at all for a nuanced, realistic humanism.
:rolleyes:
Next straw man, please.
Further, SfG, I’m still waiting on you to elaborate an argument in support of the necessity of the existence of free will to justify the assigning of criminal penalties.
Whatcha got?
Who said they were? :dubious:
Not here in the Pit. You want sweetness and light and goodness? Go to MPSIMS.
Oh, I think it’s pretty clear that whoever wrote this:
And this:
…thinks that’s there’s something awfully special about nurses.
Because it isn’t.
The mens rea doesn’t have to be an intent to break the law, but an intent to do the illegal act. If you go out to buy talcum powder, and end up getting sold cocaine, you haven’t committed an offense. If you go out to buy cocaine, thinking it is legal to buy it, and purchase it, you have committed an offense.
To me, it is figurative language that seeks to divert responsibility.
I thought there were cases where people were convicted of “possession” simply because drugs were in their house. Even though they had plausible claims to not knowing that someone had brought them there, the law decided that trying to figure out “who’s” drugs they were (at a party for instance) was too much hassle and it was declared that the homeowner was “responsible” for the premises.
Unfortunately, ignorance of Dilaudid is no excuse.
Sorry, this is a serious subject and I don’t want to get in the way of a free will vs determinism debate, or anything but that post made me giggle.
Carry on.
It’s OK. You can’t help it.
Mmmmmyup, you’re retarded.
ETA: Whoops, missed this one. Will reply in a second.
Sorry, “complex concepts” would probably be more accurate.
You’re the one who classified my view as “horrific” when it’s merely realistic, while your view is apparently that all nurses are beings of pure joy, hope, and light, who could never, ever harm their patients if they had any choice in the matter.
Man, I wish I could find the link to that professional publication (for Canadian nurses?) that lists disciplinary actions. Then you could read the article about the nurse who raped the suicidal teenager under his care, and try to explain to me what addiction magically removed *his *free will.
*There is no necessity *of the existince of free will to assign criminal penalties. Are you illiterate as well as retarded? I explicitly said that it’s moot, because regardless of whether or not people are able to choose any of their actions, we must necessarily behave as though they can. Because the only alternative is to punish nothing.
As has been patiently explained to your ignorant self, in order to be punished for a crime* you must have both intended the act and committed the act. That is why we can have wildly different legal outcomes for the same act depending on the intent of the person who committed it. By your logic, the punishment for killing someone in self-defense, a police officer shooting someone committing a crime, a soldier shooting an enemy soldier, someone killing their spouse’s lover after coming upon them having sex, and someone planning and carrying out a murder would be identical. But, as you can see, they’re not, and some of these actions aren’t even considered crimes (or are even considered commendable). However, in all cases, the result is the same: a human being is killed.
*Assume that I’m talking about the U.S. legal system anywhere in this thread.
**WhyNot **has the relevant quotes.