Vote Knight
October 7th, 2010 at 2:29 pm by David FarrarIf you’re at Vic Uni, make sure you vote in the final of Academic Idol, for the most popular lecturer.
It not often ones goes for a lawyer, but the competition is from the psych department, and lets face it almost all psychologists are nuts themselves. Also Dean is a great guy.
Dean’s final entry is:
THIS WEEK’S QUESTION
If you were going to commit a crime, which one would it be and how would you justify it to the public (if you get caught)?
Bonus question: Capybaras—yay or nay?DEAN KNIGHT, LAW
“C’mon! You can’t ask a legal academic that question. We believe in the Rule of Law! Well, perhaps. Maybe. Or maybe only one or two of the different conceptions of the Rule of Law…
Anyways, the whole point about being a smarty-pants lawyer is we know what’s illegal and what’s not. And we know how to argue about the grey areas in order to avoid being convicted. No need to justify anything if you don’t commit the crime.
- Parking in a loading zone (Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 6.4)—not a crime after 6pm, unless the sign says “At All Times”.
- Urinating in a public place (Summary Offences Act 1981, s 32)—not a crime if you reasonably believe no-one can see you.
- Drinking booze in a liquor ban zone (Local Government Act 2002, s 147)—the Police first have to analyse and prove the liquor is more than 1.15% strong.
- Stealing a baby’s identity to get a false passport (Tough on Crime Act 2010, s23)—you’re immune if you’re a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust.
- Breaching any law of the land in the name of the earthquake recovery effort (Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010, s 6)—not if you have a note excusing you written by Lord Gerry VIII…
Now this is actually damn useful advice – how to legally park on loading zones, urinate in public and drink alcohol in a ban zone.
A final note from Dean:
So that’s it. If you reckon I have done enough to Outwit, Outplay and Outlast (or Outspam?) – or just want to support the law guy – then you can text “Dean” to 027 CUSTARD (+64-27-287-8273) or editor@salient.org.nz; by 5pm Thu (NZT). Apparently you don’t need to be at Vic to vote.
You have 150 minutes to vote!
Related posts:
- Vote for an alternative to Wellywood
- Vote against Wellywood
- Too old to vote?
- Editorials all say early vote was a mistake
October 7th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
But what about the capybaras?
Vote:October 7th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
That’s very interesting. There is no legal presumption that because you’re drinking from a commercially-produced beer or wine container that the contents are what is printed on the label? Very handy if so. Finish it, tip it out, or just quietly put it away without making a fuss and take your ticket with a “thank you, officer”.
Vote:October 7th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
I’d be very surprised if the police have to “analyse” alcohol content in order to issue an infringement notice – most alcoholic receptacles have labels like “Woodstock” on the outside of them, along with the alc. %…
Vote:October 7th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Capybaras? Yay, especially at Lent.
Vote:October 7th, 2010 at 6:36 pm
It’s true they have to analyse it. But upon conviction you’ll have to pay reparation for the analysis costs in addition to the fine.
Plus telling the judge that your commerically produced beer isn’t really 5% alcohol is a great way to make yourself look like a time wasting prick.
Vote:October 7th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
JamesP – this assumes the cops bother to retain the alcohol for two months in case it needs to be analyzed. There was a case that was thrown out because the cops did not have the alcohol analysed, which would be the precedent Dean was thinking of. Dean in a previous career did prosecution work for councils etc so has a good understanding in this area.
By the way contract law professor David McLauchlan won academic idol few years back.
Vote: