The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Mon July 08, 2013 5:47 pm Posts: 3047 Location: Louisville, KY
So, for this homeless case, the conservative lawyers are trying to overturn a1962 decision that no criminal punishment can be made based on an involuntary status.
So, for this homeless case, the conservative lawyers are trying to overturn a1962 decision that no criminal punishment can be made based on an involuntary status.
This seems dangerous to me
There's the status of needing to sleep without housing, and then there's the 'status' of having giant piles of garbage with hazmat tossed in. Seems like the oral arguments did not do a great job separating these.
Joined: Mon July 08, 2013 5:47 pm Posts: 3047 Location: Louisville, KY
simple schoolboy wrote:
hlniv wrote:
So, for this homeless case, the conservative lawyers are trying to overturn a 1962 decision that no criminal punishment can be made based on an involuntary status.
This seems dangerous to me
There's the status of needing to sleep without housing, and then there's the 'status' of having giant piles of garbage with hazmat tossed in. Seems like the oral arguments did not do a great job separating these.
We probably shouldn't have closed the asylums.
I just don't like the idea of opening the door to criminal punishment for someone whose only crime is something happening against their will
Seems like if they were only going for the public nuisance aspect, they could have keyed in on other decisions and other laws. Instead, they are trying to take down 60 year old precedent by arguing for striking down a ban on criminal punishment for all involuntary statuses (stati?)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
