BartSimpson BartSimpson:
BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Her photograph is right there in the middle of the story. Probably why she was pulled over in the first place...you might pretend you're colour blind but the US 'excessive justice' system doesn't seem to be.
The story also notes that the judge has limited ability to let her off lighltly because the state has mandatory minimum sentences that strip judges of their ability to apply discretion....something the Harperites want to expand in Canada.
The judge's story is BS. He can dismiss the charges with prejudice and order the woman released. He just doesn't want to.
"With prejudice" requires that there be an act of misconduct on the part of the party who is laying the charges. The government, via the police officer involved in the traffic stop, is enforcing a local law in regards to a women using an out of state gun permit to transport a weapon inside a different state. There was no procedural errors or misconduct as defined by the law so far noted and hence the judge does not have the capacity to dismiss it with prejudice. Given that this is a blanket law on all citizens, her only means of defense would be on racial grounds if it is believed that the police officer who arrested her was doing so on racial grounds, and even then I'd bet a judge experienced with jurisprudence would find it within the bounds of law and hence not wholly vexatious or in bad faith. Nor is there solid evidence there was a racial aspect here in the first place.
Further, the judge probably wouldn't be encouraged to let this go from his peers either, I bet. This woman got a CCW from her home state and traveled to another. She took training and should have understood the restraints of her own state level license. The law exists itself as an engine of incentives, meant to stop people from performing illicit actions. The expectation that you can just call it a "mistake" and get away with circumventing local law, whether it is a mistake or not, essentially undercuts the law. It's not enforceable if a viable defense is "whoops, I am a gun owner who doesn't understand proper ownership of my own weapon." Much like people from the United States who fail to follow Canadian gun laws and are surprised when they are charged, the expectation is on the individual to know and follow the law when it is expected there be one there and not for the government to coddle them. If ignorance of the law is a defense then a great many laws can be safely ignored, even though many of those laws provide recompense for victims. I doubt people would be impressed if pot began wandering state borders on the same defense.
The strongest arguments from my view is that the law is excessive, or that state level laws are the problem. I'd argue that anyone driving with a small amount of weapons who is caught shouldn't get a mandatory three year sentence (which, given she is a mother, hopefully can be commuted to a different yet equal sentence given domestic circumstances), with the judge having more choice on the matter. BeaverFever is right in my opinion that mandatory sentences are designed in such a way as to severely restrict a judges capacity to carry our jurisprudence in situations like this, hence why there is such a large movement of legal experts in Canada who oppose them. They look great on paper but work poorly when it comes to enforcement, and this is a great example of a judge having more say being a good thing. I'd also say there needs to be greater inter-state dialogue on this; the breakdown of laws on the state level will consistently bring about problems like this, and the further demand for greater state-ownership of law creation and enforcement will only bring these issues to the forefront more often. States certainly do have rights but should be aiming for practically good outcomes when it comes to using those rights in the name of their citizens.
Just my opinion anyways.
CKA Elite 
CKA Moderator 
