Sorry but that seems like an insane system where whole classes of actions effectively are illegal but probably okay if you're likeable. In your scenario the obvious solution is to amend the law and pardon people convinced under it. B/c what really happens is that if you have a pretty face and big tits you get out of speeding tickets b/c "gosh well the law wasn't intended for nice people like you"
Ever watched Psycho-Pass? Great anime. Setting is a sort of an AI coordinated Panopticon in which the Psycho-Pass system equips it's enforcers with firearms capable of either paralyzing a "reformable" latent criminal, (namely someone with a psycho-pass measured to be >100, but <300, or eradicate the irredeemable (score >300). The series focuses around the dilemmas created by instilling in this system the sole monopoly on violence, and this magical firearm and Psycho-pass computing device. There is a poignant point made of the weapons design. In spite of the Psycho-Pass systems assumed infallibility, each weapon is equipped with a trigger, that must be pulled to fire it. The system itself is not given final say on whether to do so. It is left as a matter of the Enforcer's discretion.
Much the same dynamic can be inferred to be taking place with the U.S. legal system. The weapon and it's wielder is analogous to the judges; the Psycho-pass system to juries. The interesting consequence here with this analogy is that the wielders of these weapons for the Psycho-pass system are almost entirely latent criminals according to the judgement of the Psycho-Pass system itself.
Point being, the U.S. addresses things through common law with an adversarial criminal law system. The judge has a great deal of discretion to bring to bear on the cases they decide. There is as much, if not more controversy to be found when statutory punishment overrides any possibility of a judge applying discretion, leaving only executive clemency as a safety hatch.
Legal systems are not intended to be suicide pacts. Rather a collective effort of trying to seek the thing most resembling justice; a thing that is only measurable through the collective action of humanity, and which when responsibility for this measurement is delegated to fewer and fewer people, tends to morph away from what the entirety of us would probably converge upon being just. The arguments you're having with others highlights this very dynamic very strongly to me. Since it is difficult for a single party to manifest a full 360 perspective on the aspects of moral injury as endemic to the practice of justice, and the condition of injustice. Pragmatism, alas, is a bit of a bitch like that.
"In his decision, Judge Cajacob asserts that the purpose and intent of Minnesota’s child pornography statute does not support punishing Jane Doe for explicit images of herself and doing so “produces an absurd, unreasonable, and unjust result that utterly confounds the statue’s stated purpose.”"
Nothing in there about "likeability" or "we let her off because she had nice tits" (which would be particularly weird in this case). Judges have a degree of discretion to interpret laws, they still have to justify their decisions. If you think the judge is wrong then you can appeal. This is how the law has always worked, and if you've thought otherwise then consider you've been living under this "insane system" for your entire life, and every generation of ancestors has too, assuming you're/they've been in the US.
maybe English isnt your native language, but "scenario" doesnt require the situation to be not real
> Nothing in there about "likeability" or "we let her off because she had nice tits"
We have no way to know if likeability played in to it. When rules are bendable then they are bent to the likeable and attractive. My example of a traffic stop is analogous and more directly relatable
> This is how the law has always worked, and if you've thought otherwise then consider you've been living under this "insane system" for your entire life
You seem to have some reading comprehension issues.. I never suggested its not currently working that way and i never suggested the current situation is not insane. If you think the current system is sane and great then thats your opinion
Everyone i know whos had to deal with the US legal system has only related horror stories
Are you even responding to the right comment? I read your comment and the parent comment you've responded to and this response doesn't make sense - it reads like a non-sequitur.
The parent comment present a scenario where the law is ignored b/c the judge decides for himself it shouldn't apply. I'm pointing out that this kind of approach is fundamentally unjust and wrong.
"And sure you can say the laws should be written better, but so long as the laws are written by humans that will simply not be the case"
