Printable View
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.Quote:
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?
This is Spam 4 a good cause. The Majority Speaks.
Yustice
Not death just exile. :ph34r:Quote:
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?
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.
Not death just exile. :ph34r:Quote:
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'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?
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. [/b][/quote]
Thanks for that input.
As original as allways.
But you talk of apples and pears.
Good luck on your grocery.
Yogi
Thanks for that input.Quote:
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'>Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 17:37
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda
Quote:
@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.
As original as allways.
But you talk of apples and pears.
Good luck on your grocery.
Yogi [/b][/quote]
Not really original.
It's pretty cut and dry or should I say black and white.
Apples and pears are both still fruit.
Not really original.Quote:
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'>Quote:
Originally posted by SensualBarfing@16 July 2004 - 11:40
Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 17:37
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda
Quote:
Quote:
@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.
Thanks for that input.
As original as allways.
But you talk of apples and pears.
Good luck on your grocery.
Yogi
It'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
Not death just exile. :ph34r:Quote:
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'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?
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. [/b][/quote]
In the UK we have a far more flexible legal system.
It doesn'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.
In the UK we have a far more flexible legal system.Quote:
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'>Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 15:37
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda
Quote:
@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.
It doesn'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!!!
Flexibility, not rigidity.
YoFlexible
Yay ! lets get bendy !
Like the saying goes don't do the crime if you cant do the time, justice will be done
Bendy???? :huh:Quote:
Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 18:02
Yay ! lets get bendy !
As in Bend Over???? :lol: :lol: :lol:
YoBendsAlot
Did someone commit a crime?? :oQuote:
Originally posted by Voetsek@16 July 2004 - 18:08
Like the saying goes don't do the crime if you cant do the time, justice will be done
Did someone file charges??? :blink:
Doh!!!!
Yam4
Bendy???? :huh:Quote:
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 @ 16 July 2004 - 16:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-brenda@16 July 2004 - 18:02
Yay ! lets get bendy !
As in Bend Over???? :lol: :lol: :lol:
YoBendsAlot [/b][/quote]
:o Who told you my surname !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(it's spelt Ova though)
:o Who told you my surname !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
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'>Quote:
Originally posted by SensualBarfing@16 July 2004 - 16:09
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda
Quote:
@16 July 2004 - 18:02
Yay ! lets get bendy !
Bendy???? :huh:
As in Bend Over???? :lol: :lol: :lol:
YoBendsAlot
(it's spelt Ova though) [/b][/quote]
Your name is Brenda Bendova????
Sounds like a po............. :o
Yendy
In the UK we have a far more flexible legal system.Quote:
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 @ 16 July 2004 - 11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by Busyman@16 July 2004 - 15:37
<!--QuoteBegin-brenda
Quote:
@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.
It doesn'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'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't go back and say that the law was so rigid when in fact chances were given.
It's called denial.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Just Brenda Ova
she's my alter ego, my real name is....................
Thanks for the PM, that is a name i wouldn't reveal too.......... :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 18:23
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Just Brenda Ova
she's my alter ego, my real name is....................
Yova
Our justice really rules at times...Quote:
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's family says of his innocence.
"In the Justice System, there are especially hanious crimes"
Where you are Guilty until proven Innocent
You think i'm stupid? You should see my brother, he's really bent over.
Doh!Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@16 July 2004 - 09:50
You think i'm stupid? You should see my brother, he's really bent over.
BusyMan:
You gotta admit, the man is an original........... :01:Quote:
America is here for the people
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
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' it is Glasgow Fair Friday, so I may just be spectacularly drunk this evening.
http://www.arnoldclark.co.uk/PR/Images/nofrills.gifQuote:
Originally posted by J'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' it is Glasgow Fair Friday, so I may just be spectacularly drunk this evening.
I would like to see your gimmicks though, J'Pol, esp. when spectacularly drunk.... :lol:
Apples, ;)
Yogi
Broken back? :unsure:Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@16 July 2004 - 17:50
You think i'm stupid? You should see my brother, he's really bent over.
You missed the point as always.Quote:
Originally posted by SensualBarfing@16 July 2004 - 13:22
BusyMan:
You gotta admit, the man is an original........... :01:Quote:
America is here for the people
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
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't do it for ya. You are off on a tangent.
I didn't mention bans or sams. :(Quote:
Originally posted by J'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' it is Glasgow Fair Friday, so I may just be spectacularly drunk this evening.
I wasn't really proposing a line of arguement either...... just musing. :)
Anyhoo I'm off to get incredibly drunk for free.
See you all later if i'm still alive.
Enjoy the GFF JP. :D
I didn't mention bans or sams. :(Quote:
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'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' it is Glasgow Fair Friday, so I may just be spectacularly drunk this evening.
I wasn't really proposing a line of arguement either...... just musing. :)
Anyhoo I'm off to get incredibly drunk for free.
See you all later if i'm still alive.
Enjoy the GFF JP. :D [/b][/quote]
Dangnamit J'Pol.
Were talking about it but were not talking about it, okaaaaaay? ;)
Dangnamit J'Pol.Quote:
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'>Quote:
Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 14:28
<!--QuoteBegin-J'Pol
Quote:
@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' it is Glasgow Fair Friday, so I may just be spectacularly drunk this evening.
I didn't mention bans or sams. :(
I wasn't really proposing a line of arguement either...... just musing. :)
Anyhoo I'm off to get incredibly drunk for free.
See you all later if i'm still alive.
Enjoy the GFF JP. :D
Were talking about it but were not talking about it, okaaaaaay? ;) [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I wasn't honestly, I was just hypertheticalising (I so with that was a word) and musing.
You missed the point as always.Quote:
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:
You gotta admit, the man is an original........... :01:Quote:
America is here for the people
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
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'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:
I didn't mention bans or sams. :(Quote:
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'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' it is Glasgow Fair Friday, so I may just be spectacularly drunk this evening.
I wasn't really proposing a line of arguement either...... just musing. :)
Anyhoo I'm off to get incredibly drunk for free.
See you all later if i'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.
I do apologise, I just took the ingredients ofQuote:
Originally posted by J'Pol+16 July 2004 - 23:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'Pol @ 16 July 2004 - 23:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Quote:
Originally posted by brenda@16 July 2004 - 19:28
<!--QuoteBegin-J'Pol
Quote:
@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' it is Glasgow Fair Friday, so I may just be spectacularly drunk this evening.
I didn't mention bans or sams. :(
I wasn't really proposing a line of arguement either...... just musing. :)
Anyhoo I'm off to get incredibly drunk for free.
See you all later if i'm still alive.
Enjoy the GFF JP. :D
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!!!!
Yogi
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's guns because it was justified in it's response according to all current laws?
If the system does not uphold it'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't you?Quote:
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's guns because it was justified in it's response according to all current laws?
If the system does not uphold it'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 must agree with everyone else.
What di 'ell is yaw prawblem?
You do know you are trolling for saying that don't you?Quote:
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? Or should the system stick to it's guns because it was justified in it's response according to all current laws?
If the system does not uphold it'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 must agree with everyone else.
What di 'ell is yaw prawblem? [/b][/quote]
And you say I miss the point???? :lol: :lol: :lol:
yostonished
There is however precedent for a Ban being reversed. I am aware of at least one occasion where it has happened.Quote:
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? Or should the system stick to it's guns because it was justified in it's response according to all current laws?
If the system does not uphold it'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 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'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'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.
There is however precedent for a Ban being reversed. I am aware of at least one occasion where it has happened.Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol+16 July 2004 - 23:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J'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's guns because it was justified in it's response according to all current laws?
If the system does not uphold it'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 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'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'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
Chapeau.Quote:
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'>Quote:
Originally posted by J'Pol@16 July 2004 - 23:36
<!--QuoteBegin-tracydani
Quote:
@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's guns because it was justified in it's response according to all current laws?
If the system does not uphold it'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'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'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 [/b][/quote]
Thank You.
You do know you are trolling for saying that don't you?Quote:
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? Or should the system stick to it's guns because it was justified in it's response according to all current laws?
If the system does not uphold it'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 must agree with everyone else.
What di 'ell is yaw prawblem? [/b][/quote]
Don't be silly TD isn't trolling...she's mod-kissing... :lol:
Quote:
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've seen so far, no, not all crime. Aren'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't they receive the death penalty (aka ban from the board)?
Quote:
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've seen so far, no, not all crime. Aren'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'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.