On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 04:39:43 GMT, Paul Farrow <pfarrow@flamenetworks.co.uk> said: > consider that drunkeness would be a good excuse for taking over say, a > university network, or a government server... > although i must admit i have done neither, would drunkeness hold up in > court as a suitable excuse, or would insanity be a better line to > follow? :) Forget an insanity defense, unless the accused really *was* so far out of it that "right" and "wrong" didn't have the standard meanings. As Hinkley is now finding out, you end up in a little room until *everybody* is convinced you're harmless. Usually you end up staying locked up longer than if you had copped a plea, so it's mostly of no use unless you're trying to get out of a capital offense (have to be a *really* interesting govt server to qualify ;) Similarly, drunkenness (or being under the influence of other pharmeceuticals) wouldn't hold up unless you could show that you didn't take the stuff. "Well your honor, I was at this party and I was the designated driver, so I was just drinking Coke, and some asshole kept putting rum in when I wasn't looking..". You'll probably have to produce witnesses that place you and the asshole at the party, and finding the bottle of rum and dusting it for the asshole's prints would be a good idea too.. :) Your best bet is finding some other avenue of "wasn't me, I didn't do it" defense - the guy who alledgedly whacked the Port of Houston asserted that his machine was trojaned by the actual culprit.
Attachment:
pgp00013.pgp
Description: PGP signature