Illegal is illegal. She wasn't in possession of a plant, she pleaded to possession of an illegal substance. Why did she not simply say "it belongs to the driver". When you participate in illegal activity you need to realize the consequences for the future. I am sorry that she was put in this situation, but she did it, no one else.
Noble and her friends were stopped during a routine traffic stop and the marijuana and other paraphernalia were discovered. No one claimed ownership, so all faced the same criminal charges.
What is a "routine" traffic stop? Random? Targeted?
You are assuming, of course, that she did know. And if she didn't how could she say "it belongs to the driver"?
Any other occupant could have removed the drug from their person, without any other person in the car knowing they had it.
The problem is deeper than outdated drug laws. It goes to the assertion that someone who is convicted of a crime and pays the sentence still must continue to pay for the rest of their life by loss of their basic Constitutionally guaranteed liberties:
That Noble would face a felony from such an incident speaks to the absurdity of the continued war on drugs. ...
The second is how over criminalization leads to a dangerous loss of basic individual rights. In the case of Noble, the gun used to defend herself was owned by her husband, who serves in the Arkansas National Guard. In the eyes of the Arkansas “Justice” system, Noble being caught with marijuana last December meant she had no right to use her husband’s firearm to defend herself from a brutal attacker. The law would leave her a defenseless victim.
So, when you ride in someone else's car you previously checked the glove box, under the seats, the window wells, the back seat, the over head visors, the trunk, the hub caps, and under the car for any forbidden substance? I hope for your sake that your political position doesn't come back to byte you hard and that you never get victimized by a speed trap, or a TSA check point, or a VIPR squad.
Here is a comic written by a lawyer that describes "strict liability" as used in our justice system today: "Guilt without fault"
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1008He gets to the heart of the matter beginning here:
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031A century ago the number of cataloged crimes carrying fines and jail terms was knowable and few. Today, however, that number is UNCOUNTABLE and unknowable. Attempts to count them have failed, so folks are reduced to using "estimates". They believe that the number of federal statutory crimes is above 5,000, with over 500,000 regulatory ones. So, what is actually against the law is unknowable. Making matters worse, laws are written so vaguely that they are used by some zealous prosecutors to punish people who were never meant to be punished. The result is that the law is now routinely mocked and ridiculed. Compounding the situation is Congressional "authorization" giving bureaucrats the right to create their own laws, laws which Congress should have introduced, debated and voted on. We are, for all essential purposes, controlled by nameless, faceless bureaucrats, unelected and unaccountable for their actions. And, their Federal Union has "won" them the right to be essentially immune from being fired. Hence, you have IRS bureaucrats deciding to not approve Conservative applications for 501(c)3 & 4 applications. They did this before the 2012 election, which aided Obama in getting his second term. Ben Sasse spent $16.37 per vote getting elected to the Senate. Without tax deductible campaign donations he wouldn't have had that much money for ads and campaign staff and would have lost to Domina, a Leftist Democrat.
http://lawcomic.net/guide/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/StrictLiability08.png
