Printable View
Oh, we can do better than that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
5 months for molesting a Boy Scout for 5 years.
60 years for molesting 3 Boy Scouts for 5 months.
:bulb: The first guy clearly knew how to get the most molestation value for his time, I suppose.
But that's America, not the UK... I was referencing a specific conversation from the UK riots thread with the 9 months/nine year old girl thing.
Examples would be a good start.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Doing so verbally would be covered/not be covered by a different law. The one Minx has cited and was used to prosecute in the OP was specifically designed to criminalize hate mail.Quote:
So... you can or cannot run afoul of this law by calling someone a mean name with your voice/audibly mocking a dead person's memorial/etc.? (Not sure which answer is more ridiculous, but I'd rather be ridiculing the law for the right reason, at least).
The law in question is over 20 years old. Can you find examples of it being used to prosecute political speech? Your argument so far is akin to saying we shouldn't criminalize murder because it might be used to prosecute someone for self-defense if the mob liked disliked the defended or liked the victim enough. It is theoretically possible but I think you need to show how it's either happen regularly or is likely to happen before we take it seriously as a reason not to do something. I said that you're taking this beyond the scope of us the Malicious Communications act because the argument you've made can be applied to literally any law we have on the books.Quote:
Not really, because we're constantly reminded that every law will be stretched beyond its original meaning, as dictated by the fickle whim of the mob. That fact directly impacts on the question of whether or not harassment should be criminalized, and to what extent... because it's a very short distance from "obscene" to "offensive" and before you know it, "offensive" political speech is punished by jail time, or at least stifled by the prospect, and that's the end of meaningful political expression.
I read your earlier stuff as basically saying that a law like this will inevitably have unintended consequences like being used to prosecute people sending offensive communication where offensive communication is suddenly defined as any which includes the word "orange", and I'm saying that that would only happen if the law were administered by a badly programmed robot. If what you're actually saying is that no system can function perfectly, there will aways be fuck ups, weirdness, outright insanity, then... thanks for letting me know, I guess?Quote:
Well, of course it is. I'm not saying any different; I was merely refuting your assertion that insane distortions of the law only happen in 60's sci fi when the robots start trying to parse legal codes. Humans manage all amount of legal insanity and utter absurdity just fine without the assistance of AI.
Couldn't find anything like that from Loki in there.Quote:
It's over in the UK riots thread thread somewhere. I don't remember exactly, but it came from Loki and was in response to something I said about that guy getting 6 months in jail for stealing bottled water from a store during the riots... I really just remember the 9 for 9 bit, on account of having to resist the urge to make a really tasteless pedophile comment.
It's the one where hundreds of rapes were committed against the girl. The guy was convicted of 15 counts of rape, and got about 9 months per conviction.
I was in fact referring to how you seem to desire a deeper emulation of the Soviet system on the part of the Britons, but as you say, we can discuss this when you're not so busy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
News to me that the UK now adds up crimes like the US does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Yes, how barbaric. Someone committing 2 crimes should serve the same amount of time as someone committing one.
So he got over 11 years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Thought you were better than taking an 11 year sentence and misrepresenting it to be 9 months. Cain, got anything to add to this now?
Rights are almost never absolute. The existence of laws regarding speech do not by default negate the concept of free speech. Just like taxes don't negate the right of free commerce. It's onerous and encumbering laws which harm free speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
There are a number of tests which could be used to evaluate if a society permits open expression. A good test is when a particular form of speech is almost universally reviled, but is nonetheless allowed because of the principles of free speech. Apparently this is too great of a burden for UK courts.
Umm, 15 x 9 (15 counts of rape, and 9 months per conviction) is 135 months or 11.25 years. I thought you were better than taking a math based word problem and getting it wrong. Random other forum member, got anything to add to this now!?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Do you think there should be a law of diminishing returns for rape convictions? Or maybe there should just be concurrent sentences, as Khen implies?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Eating with the wrong fork is barbaric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
A "good test"? By what standards? And here we go with the precious "principles" again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
By the standards that our jurists, philosophers and activists use? Once again, I've been using a model promoted by Natan Sharansky.
But it seems you are a nihilist of some sort. :(
I'm a realist. I don't buy that fancy-schmanzy crap about the values of "Free Speech". You're acting as if going for free speech has no downsides. Guess what, it has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Everything has positive and negative sides - you're acting as if the victims of this harassment don't matter. Hell, we even had it on this board: They're responsible themselves because they made it public.
What's next? Rape victims are to blame because they dressed nicely? You're waving away the victims' rights as if they don't matter, as if they don't get a say. Because of the "greater good". Yeah, that's nice, greater good! Because THAT term certainly has not been abused, right?
You just compared free speech advocates to rapists?
No, compared the type of argument. It's called "blame the victim".
As I've said before, I have a peeve about September 11 conspiracy theorists. Which didn't stop them from congregating at the World Trade Center last Sunday on September 11 and loudly demonstrating. They were screaming and yelling and loudly accusing each other of being government plants. It annoyed me and a lot of other people, at least until it became hilariously pathetic.
But you're saying the experience of hearing some nut say something they don't not want to hear is equivalent to rape. That my ears were violated by a throbbing phallus of September 11 conspiracies. And those people basically protesting at a funeral were committing a grievous crime against me and the thousands of other people there.
Furthermore, these September 11 conspiracy theorists should have to operate under a strict code that will cover every type of possible speech or communication to prevent my innocent earballs from being raped.
No one is saying there isn't a such thing as hate speech or incitement. And there are very narrowly-interpreted libel laws. But you have to be really afraid/overly sensitive to speech and ideas to think that's a reasonable way to organize a society.
No, Dread, that is not what I was saying at all. I was making a point about the practice of "blaming the victim" - and I also mentioned rape, because there this practice is quite common place.
I did not equate harassment to rape. That is all you in a very pathetic attempt to win some obscure internet arguing brownie point. *)
And while we're at "organizing a society" - yes, Dread, that's why there are rules and laws. Without those, you'd hardly have an organized society. Simply proclaiming "freedom" to be the supreme goal of all human aspirings is a laughable notion - you just have to look at the failures our own society created here to know that "no rules" is not a good ideal to strive for.
I don't know about the US, but here in Germany we had this movement of "anti-paedagogics" for a while - where the children were allowed to do whatever they liked. Yeah, that went well...
*) I mean, honestly? Did you really not get the part where I reference something as an example and you promptly take it to mean that I'm using this example as a broad rule for everything?
So, let's see. I say: "This painting is painted with a lot of red. Like that other painting which is also red and references blood." - You: "So, you mean to say that the first painting is painted with blood?"
WTF are you talking about? I said "over 11 years" and you correct me to say 11.25 years? How did I get it wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Besides, there is the (very real) concern that it was not 11.25 years exactly and Loki has rounded the calculation to 9 months. In which case your precision will be less accurate than mine due to you incorrectly stating a higher level of precision. Somehow I doubt that the sentence was exactly 11 years 3 months as that's very precise.
Yes of course, absolutely. What are the purposes of sentencing and incarceration? The main one is rehabilitation and you only need to rehabilitate somebody once. There are differences in sentencing between someone for a one-off conviction and a series of them but that's already been taken into account here. Right or wrong 11 years is above-average for rape. Besides, the main reason a serial criminal stops is getting caught so that is why sentencing overall is more sensible than sentencing individually: Now are you saying that a serial rapist who gets caught after their third offence should require one-fifth of the rehabilitation etc than someone who gets caught after their fifteenth offence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Are you serious? The main goal of sentencing is rehabilitation when the person in question committed hundreds of rapes (and was convicted of 15)?
To get back on topic (deliberately double-posting as I want these in seperate posts) in real life we've had some tragic deaths recently in my town, one of which reached the national news. Both incidents were kids who have just finished college (so about 18) and from the same college. I have some part-time people who've been working with us while at college and they've been very shaken up after the first death, then the second and third. You don't normally expect kids so young to die.
Firstly a girl died in rather mysterious circumstances. Secondly there was a car accident where a girlfriend and boyfriend were driving and it appears that the breaks failed in the car. The boy died instantly, the girl a few days later.
Facebook pages have been set up for those and as I'm friends with people who are friends with them I've seen some of what's been written despite not knowing them directly. I think it is a marvellous thing that people can mourn now in such a way and it helps with the healing process. Its sad, its a tragedy but people can grieve in a new way and that's nice.
The idea that people shouldn't be mourning online because they should be planning for trolls is not just wrong, its pathetic. This is not free speech in a "First they came for ..." way, this is nothing politicial, it is pure and sick harrassment.
Let the bereaved mourn.
That's how our judicial system works, yes. And if it didn't, are you saying he should be convicted for less time in prison because he was only convicted for 15 and not hundreds? Now you could under your twisted logic claim he was only sentenced to one month in prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
We don't typically have consecutive prison sentences in this country, we have concurrent.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/s...ffenders/#a102
Calling free speech analogous to "blaming the victim" in a rape is hard to interpret otherwise, as it's otherwise a sort of nonsensical point. You are saying that it's an offensive burden for certain people to hear things they may not want to hear at certain times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
No one has said that "freedom" is a goal of human aspiration. Freedom is a prerequisite for most humans to pursue their aspirations. Declaring that people can't say things which make others uncomfortable certainly impedes people's aspirations.
Speaking about freedom of speech doesn't mean one is being absolutist. No one discusses freedoms in such absolute and literal terms. Except, apparently, you.
That makes no sense. Sure, if the guy was convicted for hundreds of rapes, he should spend even more time in prison than someone who's convicted of 15 rapes. I don't know what kind of moral system allows one to say that every crime committed after the first should be either ignored or count for far less than that first crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
One that focuses on rehabilitation over vengence, or that "get whats coming to them" attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
On the flip side you have what happens in America. Where bullshit charges are stacked against defendents mainly to scare them into a plea deal because they fear serving a redicilously long sentence.
WTF! I said that I saw the tactic of "blaming the victim" used here as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
THAT is what I talked about, my dear. I'm not quite sure in what other way to explain this to you - since you seem intent on actively misinterpreting my posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
And, what, people not being allowed to be a troll "impedes people's aspirations"? Aspirations of what? Being the world's best asshat?
Not to mention the topsy-turvy fact that they recently killed one guy who most probably was innocent. I mean, what is to think of a justice system which gives the actual murderer (who actually confessed to the murder of two people) a "mere" life sentence (with parole!) - while the guy who admitted to merely being at the crime scene but who actually did NOT hurt the victims was fried?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Or let's talk about your concentration camps where criminal youths are forced to work and sometimes killed. So, please spare me the rhapsodizing about "free speech". You got much bigger problems in your justice system than that.
The prison system is not designed for rehabilitation. If that was truly the case the people who who are in prison and are viewed as not being rehabilitated will have to stay in prison longer. Does that ever happen? No, if anything sentences are reduced, never extended unless there are additional violations.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And seriously how effective is rehabilitation? Not very. People who have commit a crime once are FAR more likely to commit them again. If prisons somehow had a magical way of "Fixing" the broken human filth of society they would be less likely then random Joe on the street to commit a crime. That simply isn't the case.
So, if I may summarize your argument, you're saying that we shouldn't bother with rehabilitation because:
- Prisons are not designed for Rehabilitation
- Rehabilitation doesn't work anyway because people who have been in prison re-offend
Truly, you are a master logician.
I'm stating that if prison was designed for rehabilitation we would keep offenders in longer that didn't rehabilitate. Because that doesn't happen its obvious prisons are designed for the purpose of rehabilitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
They are designed to punish people for their crimes. Weather that is the official "mission statement" of the prison system in whatever country you are in, its the truth. They are also designed to separate the people who violate others rights through violence, theft, rape, ect ect. Keeping them away from the populace means society is a safer place.
Now if you can rehabilitate someone, sure go for it. Kill 2 birds with one stone. But do not think that is the primary function of a prison.
You're taking your understanding of the broken American prison system and trying to use why its broken to make an argument for why the process in other countries does not work. :dumbass:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski