I noticed in one episode in season four (Netflix starts with that season.) that an officer commented on how his job is part.... I can't remember how he put it, but something like part law enforcement and part community "something." I can't recall, but it made sense because they realize they have such a huge problem with crimes committed under the influence of alcohol that they're trying to help rehabilitate (I don't think that's the word he used.) the people so there is less crime overall.
I looked up the issue of confiscating alcohol in Alaska. It's different that where I live in the South. Here in some areas, a dry county means they don't serve alcohol nor sell it, but you can purchase it for your own use at home. Apparently, in Alaska they have dry, wet, AND damp counties. Wet obviously means alcohol is served in restaurant and bars and you can purchase it and use it. Dry in Alaska means no alcohol at all. You can't even purchase it in a wet county and take home for personal use. A damp county (I think they call it) means it isn't served and isn't sold, but you can purchase it for personal use.
All that said, I read on an Alaskan site that a professor did research on suicides of young native men between about 15 and maybe mid-30s. He found that there's no correlation with use of alcohol or not to number of suicides. What were the most important factors were whether or not there was a strong native leader in the community and the number of married couples, probably available jobs, but that seems really obvious.
It seemed to me that these officers actually let people off or charge them with a lesser crime than what some other people are writing in this thread. That's the part of the rehabilitation they're trying. Also, I read that the ACLU is involved in a case where the local (state?) rehabs were giving information to local package shops so anyone with the three visits (again, I think that's it) that would prohibit them from purchasing or imbibing alcohol wouldn't be able to make a purchase. Well, rehab is medical and that's protected by HIPPA rules so they shouldn't be doing it even if their intentions are good. So, they have people coming down on both sides of that issue because some say it prevents them from purchasing alcohol, but the state is saying if they do that then people won't check themselves into the centers for rehab, which is the entire point. Being an alcoholic and getting help isn't a crime, they point out. You can be an alcoholic in recovery who feels you're slipping and check back in. Well, they didn't commit a crime nor drink, but if they avail themselves of help then they have their names sent to these stores. Kind of a Catch-22.
I have mixed feelings about mandated reporting because even a sexual predator who actually seeks help on their own should be allowed to get the help without fear of reprisal. I'd rather stop the mandated reporting and keep up the stings where people are actually committing a crime. (To commit a crime the defendant must have the mens rea; that is, the guilty mind. That's why stings like To Catch a Predator or that moose aren't entrapment.) I do know of someone who was caught in a sexual predator sting and I can assure everyone he damn well deserved to be caught, but since those crime occur in private then it's always trying to get them after the fact, which is very hard to do. And as I think you said that when someone is committing one crime that's so blatant you can be pretty sure they're committing others, as well.
People need to remember there is a difference between civil and criminal court. When it's a crime the victim is not the person who is the plaintiff. They are a victim and witness. The state is the one who is "suing" the defendant. The victim doesn't even have a choice about it. Drunk driving, sex crimes, theft, etc. are crimes against the state even if there is a victim involved. If a person is a victim of a crime, but doesn't want a trial that's not their option nor should it be. The person who committed the crime is the issue. If they'll do it to one person then they'll do it to others, as the saying goes. You don't want to be arrested for poaching then don't poach, not even a fake moose. You don't want to be arrested for rape then don't rape, no matter what the person is wearing or doing, which rarely has bearing on whether or not someone is raped anyway. One if my grandmother's friends in her 80s woke up with a man in her bed who then raped her. A friend of mine was raped in the elevator of her apartment building when she was a child. Women whose wear burkas get raped. The mens rea is with the person committing the crime.
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on mens rea:
Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Latin for "the guilty mind"[1]), in criminal law, is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act", accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
Go to the page to read more, especially about levels of mens rea.
"Oh, you're going to jibber jabber about jibber jabber."
reply
share