Thanks lawyer Kelly Ellis for clarifying the difference between Maki Herbert's and Kelly van Gaalen's cannabis cases, confirming beyond doubt the law isn't blind after all but utterly one-eyed, a Cyclops, and perhaps even overtly corrupt?
The judicial system offers a "percentage discount" for an early guilty plea, a 25per cent sentence reduction. I can't believe what I'm reading. Is this offered to alcohol offenders, rapists, child molesters and murderers too? Perhaps it's only for cannabis charges? Oops, damned either way. I wonder how the wrongly convicted feel about it? Does a guilty plea, remorse and rehab change the crime somehow?
Let's recap: fight the charge and if I win I go free but if I lose I get a more severe sentence than if I plead guilty early, whereby I get a 25 per cent discount. Hey, it's an incentive to plead guilty. "Do 75 per cent of the time"?
This is astounding - "Monty Pythonesque". Rock sinks. Wood floats. If the woman sinks she's rock. Therefore, if she floats she's ...? A witch. What if I don't feel guilty? What if I believe cannabis law is ethically untenable, grossly unjust, a "crime" against my human rights, as Herbert presumably does or did before her "rehabilitation"?
Add "laughing stock" to the law's long list of hypocorisms. We should challenge legislation in the courts like Americans do? Where would women's rights be without Rowe vs Wade County? Does Waihopai set a precedent?
The "Waihopai Three" jury proved it can be done, although such courage is rare and clearly not manifest in Kaikohe. Ethical and legal challenges require brave citizens, including lawyers and politicians. In this country addled by legal liquor, we must somehow intelligently discuss marijuana. Perhaps we'll think more about freedom when we're debating euthanasia?
