2007-05-11 08:43:32 · 6 answers · asked by harryhotun 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yes, damn good idea.
2007-05-11 08:47:10 · answer #1 · answered by Ben 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I don't think so. It would probably be a waste of time and money. Although there are some cases where court officials might have had too much to drink. It's not a huge amount that will require that type of action. To me that also sound like it violates a right. what if they say no? then what do you do. I think extensive background checks is good enough.
2007-05-11 08:51:40 · answer #2 · answered by Shar D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If everyone else goes out for a lunch and drinks at our expense does, and writing them off your taxes is at my expense!
I don't think it matters as much during jury trials as the judge doesn't make the decision!
In district courts, they usually find against you, about 98% of the time, anyway. Think they would go to 100%? I have always thought in those courts you are guilty until you are proven innocent, no matter what they say!
2007-05-11 08:51:06 · answer #3 · answered by cantcu 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What an excellent thought and suggestion! Judge, all court officials, and jury members.
2007-05-11 08:48:20 · answer #4 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, great idea but the likely of this every happening is like 1% what about this in Pennsylvania Attorney's can't be forced by employers to take a drug test......
Yea great policy
2007-05-11 08:52:05 · answer #5 · answered by Thomas Smith 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and if they have not been drinking they should be sent home, without pay.
2007-05-11 08:49:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋