The argument is ultimately unconvincing, in my view. Battery law’s insensitivity to insanity is entirely of a piece with tort law’s general insensitivity to cognitive disability,200 including in the heartland of negligence. In the case law, this general insensitivity is most often explained by administrative, evidentiary, and practical considerations,201 as well as suggestions that the cognitively disabled should in fairness be strictly liable for the heightened risks they impose on others by going through the world in their condition.202 Both lines of explanation may be dubious, on reflection.203 It is arguable that, like most of the civil law codes,204 the common law should decline to impose tort liability on defendants that truly lack mental capacity except where their lack of capacity has been self-induced through responsible actions they previously performed. The point for present purposes is that, by its own lights, the common law does not appear to impose tort liability on defendants lacking mental capacity because it believes they have genuinely mistreated or morally wronged the plaintiffs they have injured. Whether or not justifiable, the common law’s harshness toward mentally incapable defendants is a departure from its general policy — operative across torts including battery and negligence — of holding defendants liable for infringing others’ rights in a morally responsible manner.
绝对贫困历史性消除，为什么要设立5年过渡期？
，这一点在新收录的资料中也有详细论述
衞志樑因其身為英國邊防人員，在2022年9月16日至2024年5月2日期間，以其職權在內政部資料庫搜尋及查看異見人士的資料，被加控一項公職人員行為失當罪。，更多细节参见新收录的资料
所以，时代变了，但是人类的行为模式，却没有发生变化，每个时代，都有每个时代的“代客泊车”，当年手机店帮你刷机，收你50块，今天帮你部署龙虾，还是收你50块。
每一次技术浪潮，本质上都是一种能力从少数人手里，慢慢转移到更多人手里。