The same is true in all commonwealth jurisdicitons, AFAIK.
Which goes to show how just unjust the pure common law comparative negligence rule is/was.
That you can tried in civil court for a crime you have been found not guilty of in criminal court.
I know what you’re saying, but technically you are not being “tried” for a “crime” in civil court: you’re being sued for damages, and a finding of fact there (by the lesser standard of “preponderance of evidence”) isn’t the same as a finding of fact in criminal court. Yes in common sense terms it’s absurd but there is a logic at work.
2nd law of thermodynamics. Proof that there is no justice in an unforgiving universe.
Damn.:smack:
My personal vote is for laws that exist to make it easier for police to mess with homeless people. “No sit, no lie” ordinances spring to mind. Also, tangentially related, a couple of cities in Illinois have passed laws banning sales of half-pint or smaller bottles of liquor and 40-ounce beers; they don’t have a problem with people getting drunk unless they’re poor, apparently.
While not really egregious and no where near the top of the list, banning “paraphernalia” is just plain stupid and I can’t see how it’s constitutional.
Got bong? You’re in trouble mister. What’s that? It’s clean as a whistle? You’ve never smoked put out of it? We didn’t find any pot on you? Tough shit.
Bill 78, the Quebec law this year that among other things banned any gathering of more than 50 people without advance warning, tried to impose an end to the student strike by force, and gave the education minister the ability to make laws by herself, was pretty damned unjust. However, it’s since been abrogated (after the government was dumped and replaced after months of protest).
Seriously, it got my little brother, who is distinctly not a pinko like me, out for his first protest march since 1995.
I hesitate to call this the most unjust law, as there are some doozies, but it was right up there.
It doesn’t seem absurd to me at all.