| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2013 11:14:12 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
Yikes, this is a really old thread. I'm tempted to go back and read, but it's 17 pages... Who has time for that? Sheesh... :) |
Aint nobody got time for that
|
|
|
|
08/23/2013 06:26:53 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
A 5 year old thread, resurrected by a guy that has been dead for 50 years - what should the punishment be? |
You'd punish JFK ???? |
Well I wouldn't shoot him in the head (from the grassy knoll), but yes. |
Ok, where would you shoot him? ;) |
In New Mexico with a giant Rube Goldberg camera. |
Heh. Rube Cam!
ETA: I can supply the New Mexico and the Giant Camera Contraption. You'll have to bring your own JFK though. ;) |
Sounds like a grand idea. JFK is currently in Nebraska defending drunk drivers, but I'll send a convertible limo to pick him up.
Message edited by author 2013-08-23 18:27:29. |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 03:32:53 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
A 5 year old thread, resurrected by a guy that has been dead for 50 years - what should the punishment be? |
You'd punish JFK ???? |
Well I wouldn't shoot him in the head (from the grassy knoll), but yes. |
Ok, where would you shoot him? ;) |
In New Mexico with a giant Rube Goldberg camera. |
Heh. Rube Cam!
ETA: I can supply the New Mexico and the Giant Camera Contraption. You'll have to bring your own JFK though. ;)
Message edited by author 2013-08-23 15:33:55. |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 02:08:15 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
A 5 year old thread, resurrected by a guy that has been dead for 50 years - what should the punishment be? |
You'd punish JFK ???? |
Well I wouldn't shoot him in the head (from the grassy knoll), but yes. |
Ok, where would you shoot him? ;) |
In New Mexico with a giant Rube Goldberg camera. |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 02:03:19 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by skewsme:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
A 5 year old thread, resurrected by a guy that has been dead for 50 years - what should the punishment be? |
Life. |
done |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 01:57:32 PM · #6 |
| A lifetime supply of Cuban cigars. |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 01:45:49 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
A 5 year old thread, resurrected by a guy that has been dead for 50 years - what should the punishment be? |
Life. |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 01:45:46 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
A 5 year old thread, resurrected by a guy that has been dead for 50 years - what should the punishment be? |
You'd punish JFK ???? |
Well I wouldn't shoot him in the head (from the grassy knoll), but yes. |
Ok, where would you shoot him? ;) |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 01:41:36 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
A 5 year old thread, resurrected by a guy that has been dead for 50 years - what should the punishment be? |
You'd punish JFK ???? |
Well I wouldn't shoot him in the head (from the grassy knoll), but yes. |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 01:36:16 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
A 5 year old thread, resurrected by a guy that has been dead for 50 years - what should the punishment be? |
You'd punish JFK ???? |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 01:26:25 PM · #11 |
| A 5 year old thread, resurrected by a guy that has been dead for 50 years - what should the punishment be? |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 12:49:37 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
Yikes, this is a really old thread. I'm tempted to go back and read, but it's 17 pages... Who has time for that? Sheesh... :) |
About 1963 by the looks of it. |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 12:41:36 PM · #13 |
| Yikes, this is a really old thread. I'm tempted to go back and read, but it's 17 pages... Who has time for that? Sheesh... :) |
|
|
|
08/23/2013 06:24:40 AM · #14 |
I prefer scenario A. But it is not practical. Reducing crime rate and making country peacefull is important.
Message edited by author 2013-08-23 06:26:32.
|
|
|
|
08/22/2008 04:03:30 PM · #15 |
I think we are done here.
Thank you all for the interesting discussion. I learned a lot and will use a different approach next time. |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 09:21:19 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
This is public thirst for revenge, not a deterrent against the offence, and not required for the protection of the public. It is a very bad basis upon which to make law - except in the polls and the government currently needs votes. |
There's a lot of that going around. With each new election in Canada, the parties seek to "toughen crime laws", forgetful of the fact -- as apparently are the public -- that in the last round, they promised the same thing and the elected government delivered a "tough new crime bill" that made all our nightmares go away.
Catering to the current whim of the public is a bad, bad, bad way to enact legislation. Rarely do governments have the stomach for turning on the public, but when they do, it usually makes a lot of sense.
In Ontario, the Liberal government was made to ponder whether or not it would be a good thing to enact a stripped-down version of shariah law, so that Muslims could hold court according to their religion when it came time to divorce, and so forth. Who wouldn't be outraged at such a prospect in a Western democracy? A surprising voice in support of the notion came from the chair of a committee made to look into the thing, a female member of the NDP (a left-of-centre socialist party, more left than the Liberals). It seemed to me that the depressing news of the introduction of a bill to enact sharia law in the province of Ontario was imminent.
Miracle of miracles, Dalton McGuinty, the Premier, a man whom I hope one day runs for the leadership of the federal Liberals and dashes the hopes of the Conservatives for all eternity, says, no, we won't be having sharia law in this province, and in fact, we're going to do with away all those other special laws that allow different groups to hold court according to their beliefs, and have exactly one system of legislation in each circumstance, and that's that.
Amen, as they say. |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 08:16:43 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Dangerous driving has an element of deliberate intent. Careless driving can be entirely unintentional. |
If I am reading this correctly, one falls within the realm of "mens rea", whereas the other is an "actus reus" offence.
If indeed such is the case, it may prove difficult for the crown to secure a conviction in the first instance, unless of course there were witness to attest to the state of mind of the accused at the time of the incident.
Would you be so kind as to elaborate on the distinction to be made between the two instances alluded to.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 07:39:37 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by SDW:
1. When did Justice become a bad thing? Do you not believe in justice?
2. Define with examples what you would consider "momentary lapse". |
In the UK:
A person drives carelessly when they drive "without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place..." and commits death by careless driving if a person dies as a consequence. The penalty is up to 5 years in prison.
A person drives dangerously when (1) the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver; and (2) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous; and commits death by dangerous driving if a person dies as a consequence. The penalty is up to 14 years in prison.
The manner of driving must be assessed objectively in all the circumstances. However, factors that indicate dangerous driving include excessive speed for the road conditions, racing, aggressive driving, ignoring traffic signs/lights, unsafe overtaking, driving while using a mobile phone, driving a defective vehicle, driving while impaired (eg without glasses or with your arm in plaster), driving while tired.
There is no caselaw yet on the new careless driving offence. However, it is expected to cater for driving that falls below the standard of dangerous driving and penalties to be applied will reflect the seriousness of the inattention. They may include being distracted by a passenger, not looking at all mirrors before making a manouevre, not indicating before a manouevre, drifting out of lane, losing attention momentarily etc. It is also likely to be used as a sweep up provision for all drivers who manage to prove that they were not driving dangerously.
Dangerous driving has an element of deliberate intent. Careless driving can be entirely unintentional. Traditionally the absence of all intent led to careless driving being prosecuted without reference to the consequences of the carelessness (unless drink or drugs were involved). Dangerous driving takes into account the consequences. This is to me a very rational distinction to draw - driving carries with it risks for society and we accept those risks as a nation in exchange for its great benefits. People cannot avoid careless driving from time to time - making the consequences so serious for the driver introduces an element of lottery into driving that seems to me unacceptable.
However, people have been horrified that careless drivers do not get punished enough to reflect the seriousness of the consequences. This is public thirst for revenge, not a deterrent against the offence, and not required for the protection of the public. It is a very bad basis upon which to make law - except in the polls and the government currently needs votes.
Message edited by author 2008-08-18 07:40:32.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2008 12:46:14 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I knew you would say that ! All this railing against prison time and now you would lock up a 19 year old for the simple act of having a noose hanging on his car! Unreal.
|
He deserves jail time. Four months is just enough. Not to tough and not to lenient.
What he did was racially motivated...he wouldn't have showed a noose to a group of mexicans or a group of white people..would he?
This isn't an issue of free speech...this is an issue of a terroristic threat. He could have very easily just had a sign that expressed his racist ways
SIGN: I hate NIGG$%S!
That would have been free speech. But a blatant threat should deserve a punishment like this. I am glad they locked him up.
I also think they show have thrown the 'Jena 6' in jail for a much longer time than they did....nbut that is a different story. |
|
|
|
08/18/2008 12:00:52 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Hasn't this been moved to the Rant section yet....a mouse running around in circles doesn't offer anything constructive! Just arguing the same pathetic point over and over! |
I think this discussion has been surprisingly civilized (with short-lived exceptions) and productive. We moved from one aspect of the issue to another and I learned a lot. (And  egamble and I even seem to agree on the conclusions to be drawn from the Norwegian prison concept.)
You have demanded several times that this discussion be stopped. A wish I find peculiar since nobody forces you to follow the discussion or to participate in it. If you're not interested in it you can simply ignore it. And if you'd like it to take a different route you could participate and share your views. I fail to understand why you would want others to stop a discussion amongst themselves.
Message edited by author 2008-08-18 00:02:13. |
|
|
|
08/17/2008 11:53:22 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by SDW:
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by Matthew:
For reasons exemplified in this thread this is a populist move. From a legal background and under the rule of law it is a bit of a nightmare: there is no culpability because it is acknowledged that everyone suffers momentary lapses from time to time. (1)The law serves no purpose other than to put probably already wretched people into an even worse position in order to satisfy the public thirst for "justice". Very sad indeed IMO. |
The degree of responsibility of the culprit is key in my opinion. If a (2)momentary lapse causes you to accidentally kill someone, this should be taken into account and the punishment should be mild or inexistent.
However, driving through a neighborhood at 100mph and knowingly accepting the risk of killing someone is a different story. In my opinion, someone doing this and being caught should face tough consequences (even if they didn't kill anyone). They should at least lose their right to drive for a long time. |
1. When did Justice become a bad thing? Do you not believe in justice?
2. Define with examples what you would consider "momentary lapse". |
1. I think Matthew was referring to one specific, newly introduced law.
2. Also a term Matthew introduced. I guess he means an innocuous event of short duration that causes you to decrease your concentration while driving. |
|
|
|
08/17/2008 11:48:43 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by Judi:
Hasn't this been moved to the Rant section yet....a mouse running around in circles doesn't offer anything constructive! Just arguing the same pathetic point over and over! |
just entertain him. not much "action" on the forums lately anyway ;) |
What with......punishment?????!!!!!! LMAO!
|
|
|
|
08/17/2008 11:30:36 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Hasn't this been moved to the Rant section yet....a mouse running around in circles doesn't offer anything constructive! Just arguing the same pathetic point over and over! |
just entertain him. not much "action" on the forums lately anyway ;) |
|
|
|
08/17/2008 11:26:55 PM · #24 |
Hasn't this been moved to the Rant section yet....a mouse running around in circles doesn't offer anything constructive! Just arguing the same pathetic point over and over!
|
|
|
|
08/17/2008 10:53:50 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Sam94720:
Originally posted by Matthew:
For reasons exemplified in this thread this is a populist move. From a legal background and under the rule of law it is a bit of a nightmare: there is no culpability because it is acknowledged that everyone suffers momentary lapses from time to time. (1)The law serves no purpose other than to put probably already wretched people into an even worse position in order to satisfy the public thirst for "justice". Very sad indeed IMO. |
The degree of responsibility of the culprit is key in my opinion. If a (2)momentary lapse causes you to accidentally kill someone, this should be taken into account and the punishment should be mild or inexistent.
However, driving through a neighborhood at 100mph and knowingly accepting the risk of killing someone is a different story. In my opinion, someone doing this and being caught should face tough consequences (even if they didn't kill anyone). They should at least lose their right to drive for a long time. |
1. When did Justice become a bad thing? Do you not believe in justice?
2. Define with examples what you would consider "momentary lapse". |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 02:57:33 AM EDT.
