More Bad News for Free Speech in the UK

[Nessus]

Are you serious? The main goal of sentencing is rehabilitation when the person in question committed hundreds of rapes (and was convicted of 15)?

Can something with a "main" goal (how about we call it a "primary" one?) have secondary and tertiary goals? Should there be any way of gauging which response from a system is best for any given input? No? Oh.

If your kid is the second one raped,

Let's say we poll some Red states on how they'd want their kids treated if their children turned out gay. Or, since this is apparently an upsetting example, how about we poll some Taliban on how they'd react if their children turned out gay, married Jews, or converted into Judaism? How, and in what way, do you think these polls on emotional, visceral response should we use as basis and/or influence on legislating our own societies?

[Loki]

Is it even a secondary or tertiary goal? You really expect someone who committed hundreds of rapes to ever be rehabbed?

[Nessus]

Is it even a secondary or tertiary goal? You really expect someone who committed hundreds of rapes to ever be rehabbed?

No?

If a system has a primary goal, I am asking whether it is permitted, in your special kosmos, to have secondary and tertiary ones. I am sorry if this was unclear.

[Loki]

Sure, I accept that jail has multiple purposes, including rehab. But I don't think anyone seriously believe that rehab is one of those purposes for individuals who committed that many crimes.

[Nessus]

I think I misread you then! Sorry

[RandBlade]

Is it even a secondary or tertiary goal? You really expect someone who committed hundreds of rapes to ever be rehabbed?

What's the difference between somebody who commits five rapes and gets caught and someone who commits hundreds and does?

[Nessus]

The amount of labour to be extracted? Loki's a Bolshevist, see (!)

[Loki]

What's the difference between somebody who commits five rapes and gets caught and someone who commits hundreds and does?

I'd draw the line at one, maybe 2 for an underage offender. Anything more than that, I see no need to bother with rehab. I should also note that the likelihood of recidivism goes up exponentially with each additional crime.

[Aimless]

Er, is this true of all sorts of crimes?

[RandBlade]

I'd draw the line at one, maybe 2 for an underage offender. Anything more than that, I see no need to bother with rehab.

In which case its not the quantity of offences that matters at all then. So all this time I've been asking why the difference between 5 and 15 your real answer should have been "there is none" rather than they deserve triple the sentence.

I should also note that the likelihood of recidivism goes up exponentially with each additional crime.

Source? I'd think it'd be the opposite, much more increasing with logarithmic growth. The first cut is the deepest.

[Ominous Gamer]

Source? I'd think it'd be the opposite, much more increasing with logarithmic growth. The first cut is the deepest.

I asked for a similar citation on the last page.

[Dreadnaught]

I hate to beat this horse even more, but this kind of fear (even from a newspaper like the Guardian, which is populated by moral cripples) really makes the idea of living in the UK seem undesirable.

Guardian partners with New York Times over Snowden GCHQ files
Some of Edward Snowden cache shared with US paper after 'climate of intense pressure' from UK government

Lisa O'Carroll
The Guardian, Friday 23 August 2013 13.17 EDT

The Guardian has struck a partnership with the New York Times which will give the US paper access to some of the sensitive cache of documents leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The arrangement was made when the Guardian was faced with demands from the UK government to hand over the GCHQ files it had in its possession.

"In a climate of intense pressure from the UK government, the Guardian decided to bring in a US partner to work on the GCHQ documents provided by Edward Snowden. We are working in partnership with the NYT and others to continue reporting these stories," the Guardian said in a statement.

Journalists in America are protected by the first amendment which guarantees free speech and in practice prevents the state seeking pre-publication injunctions or "prior restraint".

It is intended that the collaboration with the New York Times will allow the Guardian to continue exposing mass surveillance by putting the Snowden documents on GCHQ beyond government reach. Snowden is aware of the arrangement.

The collaboration echoes that of the partnership forged in 2010 between the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel in relation to WikiLeaks's release of US military and diplomatic documents.

The US surveillance scandal broke in early June when the Guardian revealed the US was collecting telephone records of millions of American citizens.

Since then the Guardian has exposed mass surveillance of Facebook, Google, Microsoft, eavesdropping by Britain's GCHQ on foreign politicians at G20 summits in London and the secret operation codenamed Tempora, involving mass interception of cable traffic, designed, in the words of GCHQ to "Master the Internet".

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...es-partnership

[Hazir]

There is no safeguard against prior restraint in the UK ? That sounds odd.