...snip...
Ignore the details or the psychology, or the causes, or even the crime. Just assume that a cop had something against you, got a warrant to search your house, found a picture of your 5 year old cousin on the beach in swim trunks, and accused you of possessing child porn. You are taken to court, and under current reglations, that evidence can not be shown, so you get convicted. Why is that just? As others asked, where is tehe line where regulation goes too far? Heck, if the point is to protect life, why isn't there regulation to prevent us from driving, from eating what we want, and from leaving our houses, instead forcing us all to live in padded rooms? Don't you agree that that would save even more lives than just bans on nukes?
That is factually incorrect. The evidence is shown to the jury as part of the process.
Its a horrible area as there are 2 issues:
1. Harm to children which we have to prevent.
2. Foaming at the mouth hysteria that has people afraid to allow their kids walk to school.
I think the ability to make that kind law is fair enough but its implementation is often hysterically overdone. Moonshadow's comparison to the fear of witches might be a good example of what is going wrong with the system.
