Thread: Wtf

Agree Sidney, except where a person in control of a car or for that matter firearm, in an unfit state, alcohol, drug impaired or using the item in a dangerous manner etc, then the full force of the law should apply and this let em go lightly bullshit should stop. The grieving and harm done to the third party filters a long way and is not repairable and all because some one was intentionally outside of the law in what they were doing!

Originally Posted by Maca49

Agree Sidney, except where a person in control of a car or for that matter firearm, in an unfit state, alcohol, drug impaired or using the item in a dangerous manner etc, then the full force of the law should apply and this let em go lightly bullshit should stop. The grieving and harm done to the third party filters a long way and is not repairable and all because some one was intentionally outside of the law in what they were doing!

What does the "full force of the law" mean? And what would its application actually do for the grieving and harmed, given that the situation is not repairable?

Do you think that slating some sort of vengeance requirement, is a legitimate role for the law to play? Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?

I can certainly understand how a person gets to be "intentionally outside of the law" when it comes to alcohol drugs and driving, but it seems to be a little less clear in the case of careless driving perhaps? At what point does misidentification of a target become "acting intentionally outside the law"?

Negligence and intention have the same level of culpabilty? Recklessness is worse or better than negligence? Now should just sentence on outcome perhaps?

Originally Posted by Sidney

What does the "full force of the law" mean? And what would its application actually do for the grieving and harmed, given that the situation is not repairable?

Do you think that slating some sort of vengeance requirement, is a legitimate role for the law to play? Do we now have to sentence people according to how the victims feels appropriate? Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?

I can certainly understand how a person gets to be "intentionally outside of the law" when it comes to alcohol drugs and driving, but it seems to be a little less clear in the case of careless driving perhaps? At what point does misidentification of a target become "acting intentionally outside the law"?

Negligence and intention have the same level of culpabilty? Recklessness is worse or better than negligence? Now should just sentence on outcome perhaps?

Fuck I counted 10 question marks and you gonna be a lawyer

Originally Posted by Dundee

Fuck I counted 10 question marks and you gonna be a lawyer

Bullshit you can't count to ten Dundee, a cow only has four teets

I'd hate to be accused of having all the answers..

Originally Posted by Sidney

Is that sort of emotional decision making how we should run a justice system?

Actually I would say yes. However we run more of a legal system than a justice system here.

It was a rhetorical question, have a stab at how inequitable that would become..... and how quickly we would descend into anarchy

Originally Posted by Sidney

It was a rhetorical question, have a stab at how inequitable that would become..... and how quickly we would descend into anarchy

We are. With the current lack of action at the bottom end, and over use of the wet bus tickets, the crims are lulled into a sense that nothing much will really happen. If you look at countries where the penalties are harsher for more minor crimes they tend to have less of the major crimes.

I have a feeling that you don't really understand what anarchy is. How do you explain a 15 year low in serious crime and overfull prisons in terms of your wet bus ticket theory...?

Originally Posted by Sidney

I have a feeling that you don't really understand what anarchy is. How do you explain a 15 year low in serious crime and overfull prisons in terms of your wet bus ticket theory...?

Changes in reporting and definitions? I'm not sure. There was a social experiment, implemented many years ago, where more emphasis was placed on lighter sentencing and other measures in order to correct behaviours with earlier offences in order to avoid people becoming career criminals. With this how do YOU explain why the prisons are fuller? To start with they think, "Wow, I'm treated pretty good. I's not so bad, ...", and they simply continue.

I know it is not a simple problem to solve. There are other factors:

Lack of corporal punishment in schools, for many a quick whack to put them in line worked. Some it didn't. The current situation where they don't want to be there and don't care if they are forced not to be doesn't really worry them.

Economic influences/unemployment. Sometimes people just have to survive, it has been happening for thousands of years now.

Drugs, often started as a release from social/economic issues. Being illegal they are driven underground which makes them expensive and crime is often the only means they can find to pay for it.

Social changes. It is instilled in the young that they have the right to be respected, to a certain extent yes. But in large true respect is something earned.

It is not easy, and I'm not sure you truly know the difference between a legal system and a justice system.