US Man Charged With Swearing In Front Of Females & Children After His Canoe Overturned.

[♥ Lily ♥]

The part at 16:30 in the video below where a US canoeist was charged with violating an 1897 statute that prohibits the use of profanity and swearing in the presence of females and children, after he verbally swore when his canoe overturned and he fell into a river.

Not only do I think that it was mean and inappropriate for a sheriff who overheard him to prosecute the man over his use of words while he was in a panic in the water - but the ironic thing is that during his obscenity trial hearing, a witness was asked to repeat what he'd heard, and he yelled out loads of swear words as evidence in front of everyone sitting in the courtroom where females were also present... which ironically wasn't an offence.

16:30 - 18:30 in the video

[Maintenance]

Rofl stupid.

[de Burgh II]

I guess you can say it is because it has its roots in English common law that has its derivatives from medieval England that gave rise to the adversarial system that is commonest especially in former/adjunctive colonies of the British Empire. Where the judge is merely a third party/mediator between the plantiff/prosecutor (person bringing charges against the defendant) and the defendant (who is the individual/victim of alleged "crime") who are represented by both a defense attorney and public defender (which is only in civil law/cases). Whereas places such as France or the Netherlands follow the inquisitional system where the judge actually heads/investigate the cases that strays away from their mediator roles. That has its foundations in the Napoleonic codes/Roman law.

Nevertheless, each state is mandated with their own county/trial courts. Whose proceedings can be challenged by the individual via appellate courts or Court of Appeals to review the outcome of the cases. If anything is deemed wrong in how the proceedings went or something was unjust; the Supreme court can reprimand the trial court for another arrangement for a second trial to commence.

In situations like this, some state statutes can date back to the 1600 to 1800's in terms of what they outlined in their state statutes can still maintain its own potency in terms of what the individual has "violated" or "committed." Which can still be in effect despite its outdated relevance/context due to its role in still being apart of the state statutes.