| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 94612 | 2008-11-05 07:37:00 | Very sick Judge! | royaloaks (8205) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 717891 | 2008-11-11 09:20:00 | People learn by example. A state that gives no liberties breeds people that do the same. If you want a compassionate, humane society then you need a state that acts as such. And vice versa It's hard, and not always seemingly worth it, but the alternatives are awful. It's a slippery slope as soon as you start doing what you're suggesting, better not to set the precedent IM(H)O. I give people liberty. I probably would get fired if my employer sees this, but when I see a parent unable to buy his kid a pack of 69c chewing gum, I put the gum in the bag anyway without scanning it. When a neighbour's kid broke my car window, I told the poor parents not to worry and that they don't have to pay for it. They insisted to pay half of the replacement cost. But don't complain to me when I choose to end the lives of callous criminals who have raped and/or murdered innocent people. They do not deserve the liberty of breathing in a free world. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 717892 | 2008-11-11 09:30:00 | Banana and Deano I think you guys must be long lost twins. Crooks could rape your Mum murder your kids and you would be forgiving. I have to admire your faith in human nature that crooks can be turned around. Sorry but I am a put them in jail and throw the keys away sort of guy. Forgiveness has its limits - but then so does revenge. Experience and research ahows that repeat offending is very difficult to address. Most criminologists will admit that most attempts to reform recidivist offenders fail - and fail miserably. Only a very small percentage of repeat offenders turn over a new leaf at any stage in their lives. Crime is not something that can be stamped out - it is one of the faces of any society anywhere - either in the past or the present, anywhere on earth. Nobody said it better than Lord Chief Justice Halisham: "The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty." |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 717893 | 2008-11-11 09:35:00 | I give people liberty. I probably would get fired if my employer sees this, but when I see a parent unable to buy his kid a pack of 69c chewing gum, I put the gum in the bag anyway without scanning it. So you pay for the gum later? Or have you just admitted to theft as a servant on a public forum? |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 717894 | 2008-11-11 09:40:00 | So you pay for the gum later? Or have you just admitted to theft as a servant on a public forum? I'm a servant? |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 717895 | 2008-11-11 18:39:00 | I'm a servant? In respect of the theft that you have admitted to here, yes - you are a "servant" insofar as that is how the charge would be read. ie: "theft as a servant". The charge carries a much higher maximum penalty (7 years imprisonment) regardless of the amount stolen because you are in a special relationship of trust with the person from whom you are stealing. If you popped into the shop as a customer and theived the chewing gum then the maximum penalty would be 1 years imprisonment (from memory). No matter how you rationalise what you are doing - whether the gum is worth 69 cents - or the parties who unwittingly received stolen goods from you were poor - or your employer will not be hurt by the theft - it is still wrong. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 717896 | 2008-11-11 20:18:00 | In respect of the theft that you have admitted to here, yes - you are a "servant" insofar as that is how the charge would be read. ie: "theft as a servant". The charge carries a much higher maximum penalty (7 years imprisonment) regardless of the amount stolen because you are in a special relationship of trust with the person from whom you are stealing. If you popped into the shop as a customer and theived the chewing gum then the maximum penalty would be 1 years imprisonment (from memory). No matter how you rationalise what you are doing - whether the gum is worth 69 cents - or the parties who unwittingly received stolen goods from you were poor - or your employer will not be hurt by the theft - it is still wrong. You should be an NZ judge. You really fit in that crowd. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 717897 | 2008-11-11 20:44:00 | I was a victim of serious (indictable) crime for which the sentence was a maximum of 14 years imprisonment for some of the (five) charges. The offender was jailed for 22 months and served 3.5 months of that in an actual prison before being released on home detention. Really?, so how do you honestly feel about the criminal who spent less than 2 yrs of a max 14 yr term?....oops, wait......max term was 14yr, he got 22 month but only did 3.5 months?...WTF?...are you serious?, Well, I don't mind telling you Deane, if it were me, I would feel that the justice system (which you obviously revere) smacked you round to finish the job the crim started..... But hey, if you don't mind being a door stop mate, power to you! |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 717898 | 2008-11-11 23:01:00 | You should be an NZ judge. You really fit in that crowd. If you steal from your employer, what crowd do you think you fit in, qazwsxokmijn...? |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 717899 | 2008-11-11 23:08:00 | Really?, so how do you honestly feel about the criminal who spent less than 2 yrs of a max 14 yr term?....oops, wait......max term was 14yr, he got 22 month but only did 3.5 months?...WTF?...are you serious?, Well, I don't mind telling you Deane, if it were me, I would feel that the justice system (which you obviously revere) smacked you round to finish the job the crim started..... But hey, if you don't mind being a door stop mate, power to you! How do I feel..? Well, I think I was more pissed off about the release to home detention after serving 3.5 months in prison than I was about the length of sentence. As it was, the judge was fairly cunning with a sentence of 22 months. I say that because, as the detective in charge pointed out, had His Honour sentenced the offender to anything over 24 months, he would have been eligible for parole after serving 1/3 of the sentence - but seeing as the sentence was under two years, he served an automatic half (including any time spent on home detention) - 11 months in other words. His Honour would have had to sentence for 3.5 years imprisonment to make any significant difference over 11 months to the actual time served - which would have put the sentence into the area where an appeal against sentence would have been likely from the offender. There were various factors taken into account in the sentencing (first offence, clean record, age etc), and these served, for the most part to reduce the sentence. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 717900 | 2008-11-11 23:17:00 | How do I feel..? Well, I think I was more pissed off about the release to home detention after serving 3.5 months in prison than I was about the length of sentence. As it was, the judge was fairly cunning with a sentence of 22 months. I say that because, as the detective in charge pointed out, had His Honour sentenced the offender to anything over 24 months, he would have been eligible for parole after serving 1/3 of the sentence - but seeing as the sentence was under two years, he served an automatic half (including any time spent on home detention) - 11 months in other words. His Honour would have had to sentence for 3.5 years imprisonment to make any significant difference over 11 months to the actual time served - which would have put the sentence into the area where an appeal against sentence would have been likely from the offender. There were various factors taken into account in the sentencing (first offence, clean record, age etc), and these served, for the most part to reduce the sentence. Well mate, you seem to have come to terms with it....I dont know what the crime is, however a 14yr max sentence, the crime must have been quite serious...I just think the damn sentence should of been serious also....I dont quite see the point of paroling someone after only a 3rd of the sentence, what is the point of that, good f**king behavior? 3.5 month is a bloody good holiday if you ask me....there cant of been much rehabilitation in that period, certainly no punishment or deterrent?! I was once stabbed in London, didn't find the blac** (I mean offenders), so didn't get any satisfaction the justice was done, however I would of been miffed it they got released so early..... |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 | |||||