Justice Is Not Black And White

[brenda]

Just a couple of points that I've been musing over............

If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

As Ms Mathea says the board does kinda belong to the member for if there weren't any members there wouldn't BE any moderators.

Should this be in the Talk Club?

[Yogi]

Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 17:24
Just a couple of points that I've been musing over............

If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

As Ms Mathea says the board does kinda belong to the member for if there weren't any members there wouldn't BE any moderators.

Should this be in the Talk Club?
Nope.

This is Spam 4 a good cause. The Majority Speaks.


Yustice

[Busyman]

Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 11:24
Just a couple of points that I've been musing over............

If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

As Ms Mathea says the board does kinda belong to the member for if there weren't any members there wouldn't BE any moderators.

Should this be in the Talk Club?
Not death just exile. :ph34r:

America is here for the people.

Someone breaks the law then law enforcement steps in to enforce the law....no matter what the criminal's family says of his innocence.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Busyman+16 July 2004 - 17:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 16 July 2004 - 17:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 11:24
Just a couple of points that I&#39;ve been musing over............

If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

As Ms Mathea says the board does kinda belong to the member for if there weren&#39;t any members there wouldn&#39;t BE any moderators.

Should this be in the Talk Club?
Not death just exile. :ph34r:

America is here for the people.

Someone breaks the law then law enforcement steps in to enforce the law....no matter what the criminal&#39;s family says of his innocence. [/b][/quote]
Thanks for that input.

As original as allways.

But you talk of apples and pears.

Good luck on your grocery.


Yogi

[Busyman]

Originally posted by SensualBarfing+16 July 2004 - 11:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SensualBarfing @ 16 July 2004 - 11:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 17:37
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 11:24
Just a couple of points that I&#39;ve been musing over............

If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

As Ms Mathea says the board does kinda belong to the member for if there weren&#39;t any members there wouldn&#39;t BE any moderators.

Should this be in the Talk Club?
Not death just exile. :ph34r:

America is here for the people.

Someone breaks the law then law enforcement steps in to enforce the law....no matter what the criminal&#39;s family says of his innocence.
Thanks for that input.

As original as allways.

But you talk of apples and pears.

Good luck on your grocery.


Yogi [/b][/quote]
Not really original.

It&#39;s pretty cut and dry or should I say black and white.

Apples and pears are both still fruit.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Busyman+16 July 2004 - 17:48--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 16 July 2004 - 17:48)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by SensualBarfing@16 July 2004 - 11:40

Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 17:37
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 11:24
Just a couple of points that I&#39;ve been musing over............

If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

As Ms Mathea says the board does kinda belong to the member for if there weren&#39;t any members there wouldn&#39;t BE any moderators.

Should this be in the Talk Club?
Not death just exile. :ph34r:

America is here for the people.

Someone breaks the law then law enforcement steps in to enforce the law....no matter what the criminal&#39;s family says of his innocence.
Thanks for that input.

As original as allways.

But you talk of apples and pears.

Good luck on your grocery.


Yogi
Not really original.

It&#39;s pretty cut and dry or should I say black and white.

Apples and pears are both still fruit. [/b][/quote]
Thanks for that input. ;)

So where do you buy your fruit??

At the fruitery??? :lol:


Yogi

[brenda]

Originally posted by Busyman+16 July 2004 - 15:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 16 July 2004 - 15:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 11:24
Just a couple of points that I&#39;ve been musing over............

If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

As Ms Mathea says the board does kinda belong to the member for if there weren&#39;t any members there wouldn&#39;t BE any moderators.

Should this be in the Talk Club?
Not death just exile. :ph34r:

America is here for the people.

Someone breaks the law then law enforcement steps in to enforce the law....no matter what the criminal&#39;s family says of his innocence. [/b][/quote]
In the UK we have a far more flexible legal system.

It doesn&#39;t always get it right (far from it) but its the principle of flexiblity to me is much more acceptable than one of rigidity, given that people, society and life in general is a fluid experience and not a regime.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by brenda+16 July 2004 - 17:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (brenda @ 16 July 2004 - 17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 15:37
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 11:24
Just a couple of points that I&#39;ve been musing over............

If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

As Ms Mathea says the board does kinda belong to the member for if there weren&#39;t any members there wouldn&#39;t BE any moderators.

Should this be in the Talk Club?
Not death just exile. :ph34r:

America is here for the people.

Someone breaks the law then law enforcement steps in to enforce the law....no matter what the criminal&#39;s family says of his innocence.
In the UK we have a far more flexible legal system.

It doesn&#39;t always get it right (far from it) but its the principle of flexiblity to me is much more acceptable than one of rigidity, given that people, society and life in general is a fluid experience and not a regime. [/b][/quote]
Hear, Hear&#33;&#33;&#33;

Flexibility, not rigidity.




YoFlexible

[brenda]

Yay &#33; lets get bendy &#33;

[Voetsek]

Like the saying goes don&#39;t do the crime if you cant do the time, justice will be done

[Yogi]

Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 18:02
Yay &#33; lets get bendy &#33;
Bendy???? :huh:

As in Bend Over???? :lol: :lol: :lol:


YoBendsAlot

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Voetsek@16 July 2004 - 18:08
Like the saying goes don&#39;t do the crime if you cant do the time, justice will be done
Did someone commit a crime?? :o

Did someone file charges??? :blink:


Doh&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;


Yam4

[brenda]

Originally posted by SensualBarfing+16 July 2004 - 16:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (SensualBarfing &#064; 16 July 2004 - 16:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 18:02
Yay &#33; lets get bendy &#33;
Bendy???? :huh:

As in Bend Over???? :lol: :lol: :lol:


YoBendsAlot [/b][/quote]
:o Who told you my surname &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

(it&#39;s spelt Ova though)

[Yogi]

Originally posted by brenda+16 July 2004 - 18:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (brenda @ 16 July 2004 - 18:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by SensualBarfing@16 July 2004 - 16:09
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 18:02
Yay &#33; lets get bendy &#33;
Bendy???? :huh:

As in Bend Over???? :lol: :lol: :lol:


YoBendsAlot
:o Who told you my surname &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

(it&#39;s spelt Ova though) [/b][/quote]
Your name is Brenda Bendova????

Sounds like a po............. :o


Yendy

[Busyman]

Originally posted by brenda+16 July 2004 - 11:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (brenda &#064; 16 July 2004 - 11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 15:37
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 11:24
Just a couple of points that I&#39;ve been musing over............

If the mods were the criminal justice system would all all crime be punishable by death?

As Ms Mathea says the board does kinda belong to the member for if there weren&#39;t any members there wouldn&#39;t BE any moderators.

Should this be in the Talk Club?
Not death just exile. :ph34r:

America is here for the people.

Someone breaks the law then law enforcement steps in to enforce the law....no matter what the criminal&#39;s family says of his innocence.
In the UK we have a far more flexible legal system.

It doesn&#39;t always get it right (far from it) but its the principle of flexiblity to me is much more acceptable than one of rigidity, given that people, society and life in general is a fluid experience and not a regime. [/b][/quote]
After sentencing though it&#39;s over.

We have a 3 Strikes law in some states.

We have probation.

People have their chances.....until they are all used up. ;)

After that last chance you can&#39;t go back and say that the law was so rigid when in fact chances were given.

It&#39;s called denial.

[brenda]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Just Brenda Ova

she&#39;s my alter ego, my real name is....................

[Yogi]

Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 18:23
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Just Brenda Ova

she&#39;s my alter ego, my real name is....................
Thanks for the PM, that is a name i wouldn&#39;t reveal too.......... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Yova

[UcanRock2]

Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 08:37
America is here for the people.

Someone breaks the law then law enforcement steps in to enforce the law....no matter what the criminal&#39;s family says of his innocence.
Our justice really rules at times...

"In the Justice System, there are especially hanious crimes"

Where you are Guilty until proven Innocent

[Virtualbody1234]

You think i&#39;m stupid? You should see my brother, he&#39;s really bent over.

[UcanRock2]

Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@16 July 2004 - 09:50
You think i&#39;m stupid? You should see my brother, he&#39;s really bent over.
Doh&#33;

[Yogi]

BusyMan:

America is here for the people

You gotta admit, the man is an original........... :01:


That quote is one of the most hilarious in ages............. :lol: :lol: :lol:


America...... for the people.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Maybe if you put "rich"in it..............


YoRichWithoutMoney

[J'Pol]

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.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@16 July 2004 - 19:31
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.
http://www.arnoldclark.co.uk/PR/Images/nofrills.gif

I would like to see your gimmicks though, J&#39;Pol, esp. when spectacularly drunk.... :lol:



Apples, ;)


Yogi

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@16 July 2004 - 17:50
You think i&#39;m stupid? You should see my brother, he&#39;s really bent over.
Broken back? :unsure:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by SensualBarfing@16 July 2004 - 13:22
BusyMan:

America is here for the people

You gotta admit, the man is an original........... :01:


That quote is one of the most hilarious in ages............. :lol: :lol: :lol:


America...... for the people.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Maybe if you put "rich"in it..............


YoRichWithoutMoney
You missed the point as always.

But then again we miss yours all time.

(see previous post by Yostupidcomehere^)

In that case

Insert "The UK" is for the people if America doesn&#39;t do it for ya. You are off on a tangent.

[brenda]

Originally posted by 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. :D

[Busyman]

Originally posted by brenda+16 July 2004 - 14:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (brenda @ 16 July 2004 - 14:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--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. :D [/b][/quote]
Dangnamit J&#39;Pol.

Were talking about it but were not talking about it, okaaaaaay? ;)

[brenda]

Originally posted by Busyman+16 July 2004 - 18:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 16 July 2004 - 18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 14:28
<!--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. :D
Dangnamit J&#39;Pol.

Were talking about it but were not talking about it, okaaaaaay? ;) [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I wasn&#39;t honestly, I was just hypertheticalising (I so with that was a word) and musing.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Busyman+16 July 2004 - 20:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 16 July 2004 - 20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SensualBarfing@16 July 2004 - 13:22
BusyMan:

America is here for the people

You gotta admit, the man is an original........... :01:


That quote is one of the most hilarious in ages............. :lol: :lol: :lol:


America...... for the people.... :lol: :lol: :lol:


Maybe if you put "rich"in it..............


YoRichWithoutMoney
You missed the point as always.

But then again we miss yours all time.

(see previous post by Yostupidcomehere^)

In that case

Insert "The UK" is for the people if America doesn&#39;t do it for ya. You are off on a tangent. [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Yo :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Tangent SaysWho????? :blink:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by brenda+16 July 2004 - 19:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (brenda @ 16 July 2004 - 19:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--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. :D [/b][/quote]
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.

[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. :D
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???? :lol: :lol: ;)


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 :P

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 :P

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 :P

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???? :lol: :lol: :lol:

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 :P

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 :P

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 :P

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 :P

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... :lol:

[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.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+17 July 2004 - 03:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 17 July 2004 - 03:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Prodigy Girl@17 July 2004 - 00:41
<!--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)?
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. [/b][/quote]
My whrist is getting tired from takin me hat off again.......... :01:

[Prodigy Girl]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+16 July 2004 - 20:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 16 July 2004 - 20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Prodigy Girl@17 July 2004 - 00:41
<!--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)?
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.[/b][/quote]

So the person who continually commits petty theft should have their hands chopped off then? :P

Seriously though, everything should depend upon the the laws of the community. As for the rules here on the forum, I&#39;m not sure if I get the interpretation as it seems that everyone has developed their own. But here in my home-state, if a criminal is a repeat offender, the court system eventually "throws the book" at them and they wind up serving a more severe punishment than a first time offender of the same crime. It may seem harsh, but shouldn&#39;t something be done to deter folks from doing the same bad actions? At some point, doesn&#39;t it become a waste of time and money for the justice system as well as the law abiding citizens who have to put up with the criminal who seemingly cannot control himself/herself?

In real life, I am not for the death penalty, but I do believe that everyone should be held accountable for their actions. ;)

[Busyman]

There is a death penalty thread in WN&E.

I said there that I prefer exile over the death penalty.

Also public outcry does not equate to multiple threads about the same thing (and by the same people) or saying the member&#39;s name 1000 times.

If I thought mods just had it out for said member, I&#39;d be up in arms for the cause so to speak.

...or if said member wasn&#39;t already being disciplined (and hasn&#39;t in the past) , I would think a banning would be rash.

This is not the case.

One thing I can&#39;t stand is a person that has been warned about something and still goes and fucks up.

One example that springs to mind is regarding the three-strikes law in some states.

Wtf kind of stupid do you have to be
to have your ass get to strike three
You know the consequence you know the punishments
Fucking up three times gets you a life sentence

:blink:

[tracydani]

Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 23:28

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?
LOL, not trying to troll :)

As far as agreeing with everyone else? I actually do agree with the supporters to a certain degree. I believe it would have been a good idea to suspend him first and then ban next. Suspension is not always neccessary, but probably was in this case.

However, once the ban has happened I think it important to stick with it. Especially as I believe the rules state banning, not suspending then banning.

I am not against a slight change in rules though if neccessary. This will allow more flexibility.

@ Withcheese

I wouldn&#39;t mod-kiss, I&#39;m saving all my kisses for you ;)

TD

[NikkiD]

*applause*

Sorry, I wasn&#39;t applauding TD&#39;s post above, but was applauding comments that Withcheese made about deleted posts, which were deleted. <_<

[DanB]

Hear hear :01:

[Cheese]

Originally posted by SensualBarfing@18 July 2004 - 10:13
Ban the little people...... :01:
:blink:

Then it would just be DanB, J&#39;Pol and myself...

[Mr. Mulder]

Peerzy for mod&#33; :01:

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Withcheese+18 July 2004 - 12:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Withcheese @ 18 July 2004 - 12:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-SensualBarfing@18 July 2004 - 10:13
Ban the little people...... :01:
:blink:

Then it would just be DanB, J&#39;Pol and myself... [/b][/quote]
errrmmm, no&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

I meant the little people as in little people. :helpsmile: :blink: