"The law's an ass" - I tend to agree

Forums › Off topic › "The law's an ass" - I tend to agree

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1104026 7-Aug-2014 13:14

Sorry, but the death penalty doesn't work, in fact I'm pretty sure it makes things worse.

If someone commits a crime, and they know the penalty is death, they have nothing left to lose. A person with nothing to lose is very dangerous.

Penalties DO NOT prevent crimes.

Lyderies

266 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1104033 7-Aug-2014 13:18

andrewNZ: Sorry, but the death penalty doesn't work, in fact I'm pretty sure it makes things worse.

If someone commits a crime, and they know the penalty is death, they have nothing left to lose. A person with nothing to lose is very dangerous.

Penalties DO NOT prevent crimes.

Letting them off prevents it as well? Or they just re-offend usually with a worse crime than they previously did?

I'm going to noob myself past judgement

andrewNZ

2487 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1104040 7-Aug-2014 13:30

Lyderies:
andrewNZ: Sorry, but the death penalty doesn't work, in fact I'm pretty sure it makes things worse.

If someone commits a crime, and they know the penalty is death, they have nothing left to lose. A person with nothing to lose is very dangerous.

Penalties DO NOT prevent crimes.

Letting them off prevents it as well? Or they just re-offend usually with a worse crime than they previously did?

If you lock them up with genuine criminals, what do you think they'll learn? I don't have any stats, but if I wanted the best chance of preventing re-offending in these cases, I wouldn't chose prison.

The only to make it better is to have these people really understand how people feel when these types of things happen, and the only way to achieve that is to have them be a part of society.
An outcast simply doesn't care what people think.

What you want is revenge, what society needs is rehabilitation.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1104041 7-Aug-2014 13:30

surfisup1000:
sxz:
There are two issues here you are mixing together.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

Are you saying the thug accidentally gave dudley a beating?

I don't get how your scenario relates, sorry.

No, that wasn't what I was trying to say at all. I didn't word it well, but I was trying to relate the situation (Assault) with an offence that ordinary people might be charged with (dangerous driving).

If you accidentally crash into someone because you are not paying attention, that could be an offence (dangerous driving).

If you are convicted of dangerous driving, because you were not watching the road properly and you have a nose-to-tail, you would not expect to go to prison simply because the person you hit died, when the main cause of their death was a preexisting un-diagnosed heart condition, and not your actions. You would (presumably) expect to be treated the same as any other person who had a minor nose to tail - convicted of dangerous driving.

THe situation is the same here. This chap should expect to be treated the same as any other offender charged with assault. That is what the Judge did, and that is the correct approach in my view.

You are still confusing the two issues together however. The other issue is the Assault itself. You are asking: should someone charged with assault receive a discharge without conviction. This is where I completely disagree with the Judge, and agree with you. I think an Assault is not (should not?) be considered part of normal schoolground activity, but should be treated as the serious offence that it is. I think he should be convicted, and punished. I think all assaults should be treated that way. I just do not believe that in coming up with the punishment the death should be taken into account, because he did not cause the death - the preexisting un-diagnosed heart condition did.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#1104091 7-Aug-2014 14:22

sxz:
surfisup1000:
sxz:
There are two issues here you are mixing together.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

Are you saying the thug accidentally gave dudley a beating?

I don't get how your scenario relates, sorry.

No, that wasn't what I was trying to say at all. I didn't word it well, but I was trying to relate the situation (Assault) with an offence that ordinary people might be charged with (dangerous driving).

If you accidentally crash into someone because you are not paying attention, that could be an offence (dangerous driving).

If you are convicted of dangerous driving, because you were not watching the road properly and you have a nose-to-tail, you would not expect to go to prison simply because the person you hit died, when the main cause of their death was a preexisting un-diagnosed heart condition, and not your actions. You would (presumably) expect to be treated the same as any other person who had a minor nose to tail - convicted of dangerous driving.

THe situation is the same here. This chap should expect to be treated the same as any other offender charged with assault. That is what the Judge did, and that is the correct approach in my view.

You are still confusing the two issues together however. The other issue is the Assault itself. You are asking: should someone charged with assault receive a discharge without conviction. This is where I completely disagree with the Judge, and agree with you. I think an Assault is not (should not?) be considered part of normal schoolground activity, but should be treated as the serious offence that it is. I think he should be convicted, and punished. I think all assaults should be treated that way. I just do not believe that in coming up with the punishment the death should be taken into account, because he did not cause the death - the preexisting un-diagnosed heart condition did.

The death is already taken into account because that is why it ended up before the courts in the first instance.

At the very least, since the case did appear before the courts an assault conviction should have been warranted. This gives the victim and family some justice too.

I'm not saying that the thug should be charged with manslaughter. I think we are agreeing.

Demeter

709 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

One NZ

#1104154 7-Aug-2014 15:04

andrewNZ: Sorry, but the death penalty doesn't work, in fact I'm pretty sure it makes things worse.

If someone commits a crime, and they know the penalty is death, they have nothing left to lose. A person with nothing to lose is very dangerous.

Penalties DO NOT prevent crimes.

The death penalty would ensure that my tax money goes towards something useful instead of incarcerating a criminal comfortably for the rest of his natural life. In saying that, I believe the death penalty is only a fair and valid option if you can trust the criminal justice system implicitly. I don't know enough about other countries to comment, but I certainly don't trust the justice system here.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#1104171 7-Aug-2014 15:26

I think the key thing in this case is that the kid did die, and to some degree that was caused by the assault. Now that assault has been discharged without conviction.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

vexxxboy

4243 posts

Uber Geek

#1104183 7-Aug-2014 15:34

itxtme: I think the key thing in this case is that the kid did die, and to some degree that was caused by the assault. Now that assault has been discharged without conviction.

no thats why the manslaughter charge was dropped, they couldnt prove that the two punches he received had anything to do with his death and why judge ruled the way she did because all it turned out to be was a school fight and when have you seen a school fight end up in the courts and if they do a conviction is handed down.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

itxtme

2102 posts

Uber Geek

#1104211 7-Aug-2014 15:58

No what they couldnt prove is that the two punches caused his death. To say the fact that his death occurred while being assaulted should not be taken into consideration is just crazy. To the point where you are discharged without conviction. If your child had died would you feel justice was served? Maybe it was it was the dead boys mother and fathers fault for giving him the genes that likely predisposed him to Sarcoidosis??

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1104222 7-Aug-2014 16:21

Unless one was in the court during the entire proceedings and is full acquainted with relevant law then comment is probably wrong.

MrJonathanNZ

54 posts

Master Geek

#1104349 7-Aug-2014 20:15

itxtme: I think the key thing in this case is that the kid did die, and to some degree that was caused by the assault. Now that assault has been discharged without conviction.

Did the assault bring the heart condition to the fore, i.e being attacked raised his heart level to the point where it created the cause of his death.
If that were the case then surely the attack is part of the boys death as it lead to the condition worsening.

I could be completely wrong but I liken this to cases where someone has punched someone, they have fallen over, hit their head and died and someone has gone to jail.
Had they fallen a different way they wouldn't have died, had the young boy not had heart condition he would not have died.
And then the out come..
He did fall that way and he did die, jail time. He did have a heart condition and he did die, no jail time.

Im happy to be corrected but I can't see all that much difference between the two.

dafman

3925 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1104404 7-Aug-2014 20:59

Demeter:
andrewNZ: Sorry, but the death penalty doesn't work, in fact I'm pretty sure it makes things worse.

If someone commits a crime, and they know the penalty is death, they have nothing left to lose. A person with nothing to lose is very dangerous.

Penalties DO NOT prevent crimes.

The death penalty would ensure that my tax money goes towards something useful instead of incarcerating a criminal comfortably for the rest of his natural life. In saying that, I believe the death penalty is only a fair and valid option if you can trust the criminal justice system implicitly. I don't know enough about other countries to comment, but I certainly don't trust the justice system here.

"My objection to the death penalty is based on the idea that this is a democracy, and in a democracy the government is me, and if the government kills somebody then I'm killing somebody."

Steve Earle

MrJonathanNZ

54 posts

Master Geek

#1104439 7-Aug-2014 21:35

dafman:
Demeter:
andrewNZ: Sorry, but the death penalty doesn't work, in fact I'm pretty sure it makes things worse.

If someone commits a crime, and they know the penalty is death, they have nothing left to lose. A person with nothing to lose is very dangerous.

Penalties DO NOT prevent crimes.

The death penalty would ensure that my tax money goes towards something useful instead of incarcerating a criminal comfortably for the rest of his natural life. In saying that, I believe the death penalty is only a fair and valid option if you can trust the criminal justice system implicitly. I don't know enough about other countries to comment, but I certainly don't trust the justice system here.

"My objection to the death penalty is based on the idea that this is a democracy, and in a democracy the government is me, and if the government kills somebody then I'm killing somebody."

Steve Earle

If its illegal to kill a human being what right does a judge have to condemn someone to death.
The death penalty isn't about justice, its about economics, people only mention it because they don't want to house prisoners.

vexxxboy

4243 posts

Uber Geek

#1104458 7-Aug-2014 21:54

MrJonathanNZ:
itxtme: I think the key thing in this case is that the kid did die, and to some degree that was caused by the assault. Now that assault has been discharged without conviction.

Did the assault bring the heart condition to the fore, i.e being attacked raised his heart level to the point where it created the cause of his death.
If that were the case then surely the attack is part of the boys death as it lead to the condition worsening.

I could be completely wrong but I liken this to cases where someone has punched someone, they have fallen over, hit their head and died and someone has gone to jail.
Had they fallen a different way they wouldn't have died, had the young boy not had heart condition he would not have died.
And then the out come..
He did fall that way and he did die, jail time. He did have a heart condition and he did die, no jail time.

Im happy to be corrected but I can't see all that much difference between the two.

in the instance of hitting someone and they fall and hit there head and dies then you can prove that if he wasnt punched then he wouldnt have hit his head , in this case they cant prove the the punch caused the heart attack which killed him , , if he hadnt punched him he still could have had a heart attack later the next day or week , so under the law there is a big difference between the two.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

tardtasticx

3075 posts

Uber Geek

#1104467 7-Aug-2014 22:08

sxz:
The Sentencing
It is an incredibly sad case, but I agree with the Judge that the death should not be taken into account when considering sentencing.

Put it another way. What if you were at a roundabout not paying attention because you were changing the radio, and you accidentally had a nose-to-tail that was 100% your fault, and the person you hit died from a pre-existing heart condition set off by the shock of the collision? Should you go to prison for manslaughter or was that death not really your fault?

That doesn't really make sense in this case, because the attackers made the conscious decision to hit him. It was deliberate. What if the punch knocked him back and off his balance, and he hit his head on the curb and died that way instead? It's happened in the past.

Maybe instead of blaming this poor kid who died, we should be blaming these $h!t head kids who attacked him. I can't understand why someone would justify to themselves that punching a stranger is okay. Or punching/hurting anyone for that matter. These people should be locked up and kept out of society until they're rehabilitated or whatever needs to happen because it happens way too often now days.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5