From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Dec 13 2000 - 21:49:35 MST
> > > Sounds fair enough to me. Drugs/alcohol shouldn't get you out of social
>> > responsibility, especially when voluntarily self administered.
>> >
>> > > Given that drugs like alcohol act to suppress the ego and
> > > > allow the id more liberties (i.e. reduces inhibitions) this is as close
> > > > to a thought crime as I think it is possible to go.
> > >
>> > Really, it's not a thought crime at all. She really said it, the real
>> > person.
>>
>> If this is so, then why is court testimony under the influence of drugss
> > deemed inadmissible?
Drugs are assumed to alter perception under the law. A criminal with
altered perceptions still is guilty of a crime, and can still be
prosecuted. A witness with altered perceptions may not have accurate
perceptions or memory, and thus cannot be relied upon as a witness.
I don't believe there are any specific laws that bar such witnesses,
but the opposing counsel would obviously raise the question of
credibility.
-- Harvey Newstrom <HarveyNewstrom.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:23 MST