¶ … subscribe to any of these theories about punishment. I have a different one, which is this: slavery never really went away -- prisons are the new slave plantations and the blacks that are imprisoned are put there so that they can make parts for Nike and Apple for slave wages and be perpetually recycled back into the system because of the high rates of recidivism that the prison farm systems know will occur (because the ex-cons can't pay their prison bills (yes, they have prison bills upon leaving -- they actually have to pay for their own incarceration) because they haven't earned anything from their corporate prison slave plantation masters). The system is set up to exploit black labor -- just like as of old (Benns, 2015). I think Tom is appealing in the wrong manner. Instead of appealing on the "void for vagueness" doctrine, Tom should appeal simply because he did not know that there was a daycare next door. Indeed, how is he supposed to know? The law, like many U.S. laws, is written and passed without any thought of how it might apply in the real world. Is a convicted sex offender supposed to get on Google Maps and look up parks, daycares, pools and schools before he goes anywhere?...

Unfortunately he would lose, because as Thurgood Marshall pointed out, "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws" (New York State Bd. Of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 2008).
Unit 2 Discussion

Did you know the pill would knock you out the way it did? No.

Then you are not responsible for what happened? You did not act against your own self-interest and the interest of others? No.

Then there can be no Actus Reus.

However -- arguing for Actus Reus -- she should have known the effect of the pill. Her ignorance was the result of negligence on her part, thus she is still responsible. Thus, there is Actus Reus (Lehman, Phelps, 2008).

Unit 3 Discussion

The defendant was armed and thus gave the impression of one who was prepared to cause physical, bodily harm. Thus, in spite of whatever in his mind said he did not intend to cause harm, his actions obviously dictated that he was prepared to do so. Thus the conviction was upheld.

Unit…