Justice Is Not Black And White

[Yogi]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+16 July 2004 - 23:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 16 July 2004 - 23:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 19:28
<!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol

@16 July 2004 - 17:31
I believe that mods position is that the banning was for recidivism, rather than the seriousness of one particular crime.

In any worthwhile legal system, once guilt has been established then antecedents are taken into consideration.

I remain of the opinion that sam should be given one more chance. However this particular line of argument, as proposed in this thread is specious at best.

Oh and Apple Night has not officially started btw. Tho&#39; it is Glasgow Fair Friday, so I may just be spectacularly drunk this evening.

I didn&#39;t mention bans or sams.

I wasn&#39;t really proposing a line of arguement either...... just musing.

Anyhoo I&#39;m off to get incredibly drunk for free.

See you all later if i&#39;m still alive.

Enjoy the GFF JP.

I do apologise, I just took the ingredients of

Mod + Criminal Justice System + Current Board Sentiment and spun your words, drawing my own conclusion on your meaning.

My reply however remains a fantastic one. Just ignore the whole sam / banning aspect and take it as a critical analysis of why the Draconian concept is wrong and that we should remember that law without justice is inhuman. [/b][/quote]
And you say your selfreliance is not where mine is????


Though i admit, that was one fine post&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Yogi

[tracydani]

I wonder though, what happens here.

If the system makes a decision and says that it will stick to it because it is fair, only to give in after substantial public outcry, will it then mean that it is exceptable and expected for the same thing to happen in any future occurence?

Will the system be expected to change any future decision because enough people protest? Or should the system stick to it&#39;s guns because it was justified in it&#39;s response according to all current laws?

If the system does not uphold it&#39;s decision, is it then saying that all current laws relating to the offense are wrong?

Not sure if I wrote that clearly enough. I will check back later to translate

TD

[Busyman]

Originally posted by tracydani@16 July 2004 - 17:22
I wonder though, what happens here.

If the system makes a decision and says that it will stick to it because it is fair, only to give in after substantial public outcry, will it then mean that it is exceptable and expected for the same thing to happen in any future occurence?

Will the system be expected to change any future decision because enough people protest? Or should the system stick to it&#39;s guns because it was justified in it&#39;s response according to all current laws?

If the system does not uphold it&#39;s decision, is it then saying that all current laws relating to the offense are wrong?

Not sure if I wrote that clearly enough. I will check back later to translate

TD

You do know you are trolling for saying that don&#39;t you?

You must agree with everyone else.

What di &#39;ell is yaw prawblem?

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Busyman+16 July 2004 - 23:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 16 July 2004 - 23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tracydani@16 July 2004 - 17:22
I wonder though, what happens here.

If the system makes a decision and says that it will stick to it because it is fair, only to give in after substantial public outcry, will it then mean that it is exceptable and expected for the same thing to happen in any future occurence?

Will the system be expected to change any future decision because enough people protest?&nbsp; Or should the system stick to it&#39;s guns because it was justified in it&#39;s response according to all current laws?

If the system does not uphold it&#39;s decision, is it then saying that all current laws relating to the offense are wrong?

Not sure if I wrote that clearly enough.&nbsp; I will check back later to translate

TD

You do know you are trolling for saying that don&#39;t you?

You must agree with everyone else.

What di &#39;ell is yaw prawblem? [/b][/quote]
And you say I miss the point????

yostonished

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by tracydani@16 July 2004 - 22:22
I wonder though, what happens here.

If the system makes a decision and says that it will stick to it because it is fair, only to give in after substantial public outcry, will it then mean that it is exceptable and expected for the same thing to happen in any future occurence?

Will the system be expected to change any future decision because enough people protest?&nbsp; Or should the system stick to it&#39;s guns because it was justified in it&#39;s response according to all current laws?

If the system does not uphold it&#39;s decision, is it then saying that all current laws relating to the offense are wrong?

Not sure if I wrote that clearly enough.&nbsp; I will check back later to translate

TD

There is however precedent for a Ban being reversed. I am aware of at least one occasion where it has happened.

There is also the situation where, in the real world a conviction is re-examined and either quashed or the sentence reduced. Either by way of appeal, or many years later when a case is re-opened

This is what people are hoping for. That the mods re-consider what happened to sam and decide in retrospect that the "punishment" did not fit the "crime" or seriousness of the "crimes".

Again there are real world precedents for a judicial system to reverse or revoke one of it&#39;s own decisions based on public opinion. Barabus springs to mind, a convicted criminal who was released on the say so of the public.

I don&#39;t thing anyone feels that sam did not deserve "punishment", there is just a group of people, including me which feels that a total life ban was very harsh indeed.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+16 July 2004 - 23:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 16 July 2004 - 23:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tracydani@16 July 2004 - 22:22
I wonder though, what happens here.

If the system makes a decision and says that it will stick to it because it is fair, only to give in after substantial public outcry, will it then mean that it is exceptable and expected for the same thing to happen in any future occurence?

Will the system be expected to change any future decision because enough people protest? Or should the system stick to it&#39;s guns because it was justified in it&#39;s response according to all current laws?

If the system does not uphold it&#39;s decision, is it then saying that all current laws relating to the offense are wrong?

Not sure if I wrote that clearly enough. I will check back later to translate

TD

There is however precedent for a Ban being reversed. I am aware of at least one occasion where it has happened.

There is also the situation where, in the real world a conviction is re-examined and either quashed or the sentence reduced. Either by way of appeal, or many years later when a case is re-opened

This is what people are hoping for. That the mods re-consider what happened to sam and decide in retrospect that the "punishment" did not fit the "crime" or seriousness of the "crimes".

Again there are real world precedents for a judicial system to reverse or revoke one of it&#39;s own decisions based on public opinion. Barabus springs to mind, a convicted criminal who was released on the say so of the public.

I don&#39;t thing anyone feels that sam did not deserve "punishment", there is just a group of people, including me which feels that a total life ban was very harsh indeed. [/b][/quote]
Chapeau.


yogi

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by SensualBarfing+16 July 2004 - 22:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SensualBarfing @ 16 July 2004 - 22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@16 July 2004 - 23:36
<!--QuoteBegin-tracydani

@16 July 2004 - 22:22
I wonder though, what happens here.

If the system makes a decision and says that it will stick to it because it is fair, only to give in after substantial public outcry, will it then mean that it is exceptable and expected for the same thing to happen in any future occurence?

Will the system be expected to change any future decision because enough people protest? Or should the system stick to it&#39;s guns because it was justified in it&#39;s response according to all current laws?

If the system does not uphold it&#39;s decision, is it then saying that all current laws relating to the offense are wrong?

Not sure if I wrote that clearly enough. I will check back later to translate

TD

There is however precedent for a Ban being reversed. I am aware of at least one occasion where it has happened.

There is also the situation where, in the real world a conviction is re-examined and either quashed or the sentence reduced. Either by way of appeal, or many years later when a case is re-opened

This is what people are hoping for. That the mods re-consider what happened to sam and decide in retrospect that the "punishment" did not fit the "crime" or seriousness of the "crimes".

Again there are real world precedents for a judicial system to reverse or revoke one of it&#39;s own decisions based on public opinion. Barabus springs to mind, a convicted criminal who was released on the say so of the public.

I don&#39;t thing anyone feels that sam did not deserve "punishment", there is just a group of people, including me which feels that a total life ban was very harsh indeed.

Chapeau.


yogi [/b][/quote]
Thank You.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Busyman+16 July 2004 - 21:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 16 July 2004 - 21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tracydani@16 July 2004 - 17:22
I wonder though, what happens here.

If the system makes a decision and says that it will stick to it because it is fair, only to give in after substantial public outcry, will it then mean that it is exceptable and expected for the same thing to happen in any future occurence?

Will the system be expected to change any future decision because enough people protest?&nbsp; Or should the system stick to it&#39;s guns because it was justified in it&#39;s response according to all current laws?

If the system does not uphold it&#39;s decision, is it then saying that all current laws relating to the offense are wrong?

Not sure if I wrote that clearly enough.&nbsp; I will check back later to translate

TD

You do know you are trolling for saying that don&#39;t you?

You must agree with everyone else.

What di &#39;ell is yaw prawblem? [/b][/quote]
Don&#39;t be silly TD isn&#39;t trolling...she&#39;s mod-kissing...

[Prodigy Girl]

Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 10:24
...If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

From what I&#39;ve seen so far, no, not all crime. Aren&#39;t criminals (members who break rules) given warnings, moderation, and such for small/medium offences? Afterwards, if criminals continue on with their life of crime (or if they commit a large crime), then don&#39;t they receive the death penalty (aka ban from the board)?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Prodigy Girl+17 July 2004 - 00:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Prodigy Girl @ 17 July 2004 - 00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 10:24
...If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

From what I&#39;ve seen so far, no, not all crime. Aren&#39;t criminals (members who break rules) given warnings, moderation, and such for small/medium offences? Afterwards, if criminals continue on with their life of crime (or if they commit a large crime), then don&#39;t they receive the death penalty (aka ban from the board)? [/b][/quote]
However under a reasonable criminal justice system repeated trivial offences will never receive the ultimate sanction. No matter how many times they are committed.

If a person is guilty of petty theft should they receive the death penalty.

What if they do it 10 times.

Or 100.

Or 1,000.

No.

Their sentence should reflect the fact that they are a repeat offender, agreed. Everyone accepts that and you will find no argument from me.

However, no matter how many times they do it they should never receive the ultimate sanction. That is just not right.