Naturally, the most fun and insights were to be had in the breaks and at lunch. I express my gratitude for the great hospitality and attention these experts afforded an amateur.
In no order.
1) New Jersey prosecutors are at will employees. They cross the boss, they are at a loss.
2) Decriminilization of adult pleasures was common ground. I disagreed, advocating the buyer have a license revoked after getting in trouble from losing control of the pleasure. I may write a more detailed argument latter.
3) As an extreme utilitarian, I advocated all crime become strict liability crime, and that sentencing address the person, less the act. Each conviction stands in for dozens and hundreds of crimes, for which the criminal has virtual immunity.
4) There was an objection to allowing suing prosecutors and judges. The lawyers could support such litigation but only for misconduct, not for negligence. They are too busy. Naturally, all productive members of society are busier than they are and should have their immunities for the same reason, too busy.
5) No one knew that "reasonable" meant, "In accordance with the New Testament." They explained that the reasonable person had to be a fictional character to maintain the objectivity of the standard. If one could think about how a friend with great common sense would have behaved, it becomes a subjective term.
6) Inculpatory ignorance of non-criminal law may serve as a defense outside of a criminal trial. No one knew the case law in a regulatory dispute.
7) We argued the death penalty. Knowledge of the date is cruel. The method is kind, being less and more briefly painful than the deaths of 90% of us. There is a distressing error rate.
2 years ago