You mean the link you provided that doesn’t talk about sex crimes at all? Thats what you want to support that strict liability applies to sex crime? The link that says it doesn’t? You sure?

Your point was strict liability should apply here in This case, when asked why, you provided strict liability. Now the at we hopefully found out why, you can educate yourself, that it usually doesn’t apply for sexual crimes… that’s the topic.

Should someone pissing in the trees have a blanket law applies to them, we know they exist, I’m laughing and pointing out how stupid it is to apply it in situations like pissing in a corner.

Zero, zero results for sex in your link you claim specifies it. Fucking amazing lmfao.

So crotches are considered inherently “ultrahazardous” since that’s the metric it says applies. Good take away.

That’s quite a bit different than someone pulling their weiner out and peeing against a tree where no one can see anything. I hope you can see this.

Not for sex offenders like pissing in public, of course it exists in other areas of law, but those aren’t applicable to all other areas.

Source for EU? And for sex offences atleast.

Sounds like you’re trying to apply other law areas with strict liability to this one blanketly, which isn’t how it works…z

As a semi aside blanket laws are no good anywhere, you’re not advocating for blanket laws are you…? Hope not.

If it originated there, why doesn’t Canada have it lmfao.

I can actually make that argument, and a very good one that intent is very important.

Of course, that’s not a thing in every country. This is the same country that applies murder to criminals when cops kill people, so not surprised they wouldn’t care about intent for other laws.

What a wild fucking place lmfao.

This is the same place that charges criminals for murder that police do yeah…?

Maybe the issue is the basis of the laws in your country to even begin with…?

These aren’t normal laws in other countries fyi.

Intent matters for laws that are meant to be used properly.

Unless they intentionally exposed themselves, pissing in public shouldn’t net you a sex offenders list standing.

Most (proper laws) laws require intent. Unless they purposely exposed themselves… Peeing in a corner exposes nothing and doesn’t fit any definition of “intent”. Why would this suddenly be any different?

These blanket laws are usually to get vagrants being in an alley.

It’s not a double standard, it’s a blanket law that shouldn’t exist to begin with lmfao.

Pissing in public shouldn’t net you a sex offender list ANYWHERE, where is the intent to expose to someone else or a minor? But bloviate about double standards I guess… yeesh lmfao.

Peeing in public gets you put on the sex offender list? The fuck kinda laws is that haha.

Isn’t that only because other species have dies off and they filled the void?

Googling answers at the time is no different, this just makes it easier. Anything can be shined in a bad light. Google has answers, translators do, calculators do, tutors do, it’s all the same in the end. They can also provide incorrect results too, so they are all essentially the same when finding the metric YOU choose.

I remember during school that translators were frowned upon, and now guess what, they are accepted as a normal tool.

Ai is going through the exact same phase. Peoples memories are horrifically short.