Quote:
Originally Posted by Choker
You are comparing apples to oranges. The person exploding dynamite should be criminally responsible if his exploding that injures someone. Just like the guy shooting in his backyard should be held legally responsible if a stray bullet hits a neighbor. Now if someone breaks into his locked dynamite locker uses his dynamite to injure someone he is not criminally liable. Why should he be? It's beyond his control at that point. Same thing with guns being stolen. Your examples are grasping for straws.
|
Another common example for Strict Liability cases are those involving 'wild animals' - such as a lion tamer at a circus being held responsible if the lion attacks someone in the crowd (whether he took some precautions to prevent it or not). Allowing your handgun to be stolen is very similar to allowing a wild animal to get loose and attack someone.
If you own guns, how many have you had stolen during your lifetime? I'm going to guess zero. Most gun owners have also had zero guns stolen from them, zero incidents of gun related damage or injury due to guns they have owned and should be allowed to own and use their guns in any way consistent with the law.
However, as gun enthusiasts are quick to point out, most gun related crimes happen with a gun that is illegally owned. And many of those guns are guns that have been 'stolen or lost' by a legal gun owner. That nexus between legal gun purchases and illegal gun usage is the crux of the problem.
Like most things in society, people should be absolutely free to do as they please so long as their own actions or inaction do not cause harm to others in the same society. The decision to own a gun coupled with the failure to secure that gun from theft or loss DOES very seriously cause damage and harm to others in society. People should be able to choose not to own guns, or to own guns responsibly. There is no third choice that is acceptable. I am all for responsible gun ownership and I am also for extremely punitive criminal or civil action against anyone who misuses a gun or fails to responsibly care for it.
The exact same argument applies to drug usage. If someone wants to sit in their own house and do drugs all day without damaging anyone else they should be allowed to smoke, huff, inject or otherwise use whatever they like to get high from BUT the moment that drug ends up in the hands of a minor, causes an intoxicated person to drive a car into a pedestrian or any other damage in society... I frankly don't care what the excuses are - you owned the drug, you misused it or failed to secure it - you are accountable for the outcome.
This not a new or innovative idea regarding criminal law. Felony murder works exactly the same way. If you commit ANY felony and someone dies as a result of the aftermath of your felony, you are guilty of murder even if you never intended for anyone to die. The judicial system 'transfers your intent' from the original felony to the resulting death and holds you accountable. For example, you steal a car and intend to do it peacefully at night when nobody is around. A car chase ensues and during the chase a police car chasing you crashes into another car killing two people. You never meant to kill anybody, but the felony of stealing the car allows you to be prosecuted for the two murders as well.
Our legal system is currently being used to prevent honest responsible people from doing what they want to do because some people can't 'handle' their own freedom. Instead it should allow all people to do what they want, and be used to severely punish anyone who misuses those freedoms or proximately causes damage to society by their own lack of self-accountability.