This is great in theory and a disaster in practice. It assumes that the lawmakers who create a statute are infinitely wise and have taken every possible circumstance into account. This is clearly not the case, and there has to be a mechanism for exceptions.treadlightly wrote:I have an answer to this - if a citizen turns a blind eye to the law and ends up being a benefit to society, society should turn a blind eye to that one infraction. Society gets to choose with the benefit of hindsight. Let the rules slip one time since lives were saved, or enforce the rules to no particular purpose other than to say the good samaritan should have been denied the chance to be of service. Seems clear.
As for situational ethics, maybe that should always play a part. I don't want the merits of any case against me judged with respect to demographics or statistics. I want the merits of my particular case evaluated.
But I do understand the concern. Laws should apply equally and at all times.
What used to be called "common sense" (when it was common) is frequently used by prosecutors who simply decline to prosecute when justice would not be served by doing so. The case of the Lt. Cmdr. in Chattanooga is a classic opportunity to apply that tactic to good effect.