Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to oliphant5
1st of all we are talking about GUILT here not liability.
the issue here is that you will end up with a criminal defendant sitting there saying "I'm Innocent I tell you!!! INNOCENT!" up against the equivalent of caught-red-handed evidence. The defendant's argument that he was hacked will be viewed as a far-fetched attempt to escape punishment, and the jury will just decide the case based on sympathy:
if they like the defendant, he wins, if they don't like him for any reason, off to federal prison he goes.
Of course if the whole hacking defense is recognized as a valid defense, you will hear it in EVERY CASE, even the ones where the defendant truly intentionally broke the law. Then either the jury will always give the defendant the benefit of the doubt (which will make the law pointless, since EVERYONE can claim to be HaX0R3d and get off) or they will risk throwing innocent people in federal prison.
The whole situation is a stupid mess best avoided by peeing on this law (and heck Feinstein too while we are at it) then burning it and scattering the ashes into the ocean. |
