Scribble Hub Forum

or with fine [of ten thousand rupees], or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, [***], with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine [of fifteen thousand rupees], or with both.

203.2 If a motor vehicle is involved in an accident in a public place and a police officer in uniform has any reasonable cause to suspect that the person who was driving the motor vehicle at the time of the accident had alcohol in his blood or that he was driving under the influence of a drug referred to in section 185 he may require the person so

2.34 public place means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage;

I see I see
Law is quite difficult to navigate then.

The text is similar here, though, the wording is much clearer that the relative laws only apply to actually public roads. Anyway, certain behaviour is technically speaking not ’allowed’, but not punished, which is a major difference.

For example, if the section said, you are punished for driving while under drugs, except for private areas. Then, you are technically aloowed to do so, as the norm specifies an exception for you. In this case, however, the norm does not even apply to you, as non public area do not fall within its area of application.

So, you are not punished because you are allowed to drive there. You are not punished because there is nothing to be punished for because the norm does not apply to begin with.

It is also the right perspective, from a purely guarantistic point of view, and from a penal point of view. Imagine, you would be defined by what is allowed. That would be absurd. Penal law must be by its nature restrictive and specific.

If not, legality would be defined by the absence of illegality. Which would lead to absurd takes, like murder must be allowed because there is no law against it! No, it is illegal because it was judged to be so.

oo)
What's so absurd about things being decriminalised like that?

Because you think that rights must be given to you first, and not that they exist already within you a priori. In the first case, you are peasant who is granted something by their gracious lord. In the second case, you are a conscious citizen who restricts their sphere of right for the common good.

Cats don’t deserve rights.

I don't think I understand that analogy very well; does it mean that law is something that should appease me instead of just restricting me?

This extends also to the debate I had yesterday with Alice. Alice’s way of thinking is exceedingly dangerous as it defines behaviour through illegality alone, which is a common American way of thinking.

Law is a system of organisation that makes society function by regulating conflicts.

At least, better than straight out killing your neighbour.

But there dog keeps pooping in our lawn… death is merely the correct course of action.

o o)
So basically law should clearly mention murder is illegal instead of just implying that it is illegal because as a society we want to celebrate that we have deemed murder illegal?

And similarly, we want to the law to say owning a cat is legal instead of just implying it because we want to show that we encourage that behaviour?