The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sticking with the prison issue can I present another issue?
I accidentally, but stupidly, assisted in the burning down of a barn with a compensation claim reaching £200,000. I got 200 hours community service and a £2000 compensation payment.
During this incident my solicitor and PC Dave Lofting of the Huntingdon Police said to me "If it was a shed you wouldn't be in trouble".
So basically, I am a criminal because it was a lot of money I accidentally destroyed, I am not a criminal if the money was low??? But the crime is exactly the same. If I had burnt down something worth little I am not a reckless arsonist but if it is worth a lot I am???
How flawed is this.
During my community service I have met a chap named Steve. He is a very very nice guy, he helped me build a ramp (actually I helped him but lets not bicker). His wife left him and threw him out the house. 2 of his children want to live with him so that has made him feel better. The sad thing is he hasn't a home. He contacted the council and they are still, 3 months after he was kicked out, looking for a place to live. (he has a very small income).
Anyway the council understood that he was living in his car. One day after a mates birthday he comes back to his car after 4-5 drinks. He falls asleep only to be awoken by a knock at the window. He is breathalised and is given 100 hours community service for being "drunk in charge of a vehicle". The council wrote a letter explaining to the court that it was his home. They didn't care.
Now from both of these cases you could say neither me, nor steve are criminals. I was an idiot but hardly deserving of the label "criminal". Steve certainly isn't.
But then... lets take this example further. Much further.
One night a man is coming home from a late bussiness meeting. Very very late. Missing his family he tries to get back before his wife and kids go to sleep. He isn't speeding, but he is tired, normally he'd have stopped by now but he is but a few miles from home. He may as well continue.
But disaster strikes, he falls asleep. He drives off the road and onto a railway line. He is hit by a train. He survives. But 50 passangers do not. The man, when he comes around is devestated. He has killed so many people, he feels physically sick and can't begin to comprehend the damage he has done. Of course the judge has no choice but to send him to prison. A hardworking human being with a good family who has never been in trouble before goes to prison for a lengthy period of time.
The families of course believe it isn't enough. The judge, to some varying agree knows, that the man he sent to prison is no criminal. But a man who made a terrible mistake.
Looking at that incident and maybe some of you can relate to it. I have been in the car with many people who are driving home tired. From concerts or one day music festivals mainly. Worn out and exhausted my girlfriend drove 100's of miles home and nearly fell asleep. It could have been her, it could have been me... it could have been you.
Of course similar stories are found all the time involving drunk drivers.
What defines a criminal exactly?
I accidentally, but stupidly, assisted in the burning down of a barn with a compensation claim reaching £200,000. I got 200 hours community service and a £2000 compensation payment.
During this incident my solicitor and PC Dave Lofting of the Huntingdon Police said to me "If it was a shed you wouldn't be in trouble".
So basically, I am a criminal because it was a lot of money I accidentally destroyed, I am not a criminal if the money was low??? But the crime is exactly the same. If I had burnt down something worth little I am not a reckless arsonist but if it is worth a lot I am???
How flawed is this.
During my community service I have met a chap named Steve. He is a very very nice guy, he helped me build a ramp (actually I helped him but lets not bicker). His wife left him and threw him out the house. 2 of his children want to live with him so that has made him feel better. The sad thing is he hasn't a home. He contacted the council and they are still, 3 months after he was kicked out, looking for a place to live. (he has a very small income).
Anyway the council understood that he was living in his car. One day after a mates birthday he comes back to his car after 4-5 drinks. He falls asleep only to be awoken by a knock at the window. He is breathalised and is given 100 hours community service for being "drunk in charge of a vehicle". The council wrote a letter explaining to the court that it was his home. They didn't care.
Now from both of these cases you could say neither me, nor steve are criminals. I was an idiot but hardly deserving of the label "criminal". Steve certainly isn't.
But then... lets take this example further. Much further.
One night a man is coming home from a late bussiness meeting. Very very late. Missing his family he tries to get back before his wife and kids go to sleep. He isn't speeding, but he is tired, normally he'd have stopped by now but he is but a few miles from home. He may as well continue.
But disaster strikes, he falls asleep. He drives off the road and onto a railway line. He is hit by a train. He survives. But 50 passangers do not. The man, when he comes around is devestated. He has killed so many people, he feels physically sick and can't begin to comprehend the damage he has done. Of course the judge has no choice but to send him to prison. A hardworking human being with a good family who has never been in trouble before goes to prison for a lengthy period of time.
The families of course believe it isn't enough. The judge, to some varying agree knows, that the man he sent to prison is no criminal. But a man who made a terrible mistake.
Looking at that incident and maybe some of you can relate to it. I have been in the car with many people who are driving home tired. From concerts or one day music festivals mainly. Worn out and exhausted my girlfriend drove 100's of miles home and nearly fell asleep. It could have been her, it could have been me... it could have been you.
Of course similar stories are found all the time involving drunk drivers.
What defines a criminal exactly?
Page:
Maolin Shonks wrote:
> I doubt very much whether any of you always drive within the speed
> limit. I doubt very very much whether any of you have never taken a
> piddle up a wall in town after a heavy drinking night. I very much
> doubt you all only started drinking at 18. We're all criminals
> together, and I can totally see Dringo's point of view. All of you
> sit here on the fence pretending like 'the time suits the crime' but
> alas we all know different deep down.
>
> I've been stung myself for 80 quid and 3 points for doing 46mph in a
> 30mph limit, whilst totally disorientated in the center of Manchester
> on a 4 lane road with little in the way of signposting. YOU ARE
> DRIVING OFFENDER! No, I'm just lost.
>
> What he's clearly saying is that people aren't perfect, and just
> because we aren't perfect that doesn't make us criminals.
Never seen you here before. I wasn't for a minute absolving myself of guilt for anything. I have a police record, but after conviction I didn't run out and scream 'NO FAIR!' to anyone who would listen.
I speed every day, I urinate in the street occasionally, I take controlled substances frequently. I am a criminal in the eyes of the law. Whether I do it for malicious reasons or not is irrelevant. The only crime where intent is an important factor, is murder/manslaughter.
You don't seem to be able to separate the notion of a bad or evil person and a criminal.
Allow me to break it down - the law in our country is a set of rules laid down by our government. The law has been approved, decided and put into place by those in power to, in their view, stop society from tearing itself apart. Though their judgement is (in my view certainly anyway) sometimes misguided, for the majority of the time, the law is their for our benefit and the careful balance of civilised society.
I choose to ignore some of these laws, this makes me a criminal. Whether I do it for evil intent, for a laugh, or because I have a strong moral objection to these laws, is IRRELEVANT. In the laws eyes, I am a criminal, the reason for breaking the law is rarely if ever considered as an excuse. Old people are put into prison for refusing to pay taxes. They are not bad people, but they ARE criminals in the eyes of the law.
You are confusing the notion of bad people and criminals. One of these is a moral issue, the other is to do with the breaking of some (for the most part) easy to understand guidelines for living in our country.
You can argue that you didn't mean to harm anyone and that you regret your actions, and you may be able to convince me, but you are still a criminal whether you like it or not. Just deal with it as was said before.
> I doubt very much whether any of you always drive within the speed
> limit. I doubt very very much whether any of you have never taken a
> piddle up a wall in town after a heavy drinking night. I very much
> doubt you all only started drinking at 18. We're all criminals
> together, and I can totally see Dringo's point of view. All of you
> sit here on the fence pretending like 'the time suits the crime' but
> alas we all know different deep down.
>
> I've been stung myself for 80 quid and 3 points for doing 46mph in a
> 30mph limit, whilst totally disorientated in the center of Manchester
> on a 4 lane road with little in the way of signposting. YOU ARE
> DRIVING OFFENDER! No, I'm just lost.
>
> What he's clearly saying is that people aren't perfect, and just
> because we aren't perfect that doesn't make us criminals.
Never seen you here before. I wasn't for a minute absolving myself of guilt for anything. I have a police record, but after conviction I didn't run out and scream 'NO FAIR!' to anyone who would listen.
I speed every day, I urinate in the street occasionally, I take controlled substances frequently. I am a criminal in the eyes of the law. Whether I do it for malicious reasons or not is irrelevant. The only crime where intent is an important factor, is murder/manslaughter.
You don't seem to be able to separate the notion of a bad or evil person and a criminal.
Allow me to break it down - the law in our country is a set of rules laid down by our government. The law has been approved, decided and put into place by those in power to, in their view, stop society from tearing itself apart. Though their judgement is (in my view certainly anyway) sometimes misguided, for the majority of the time, the law is their for our benefit and the careful balance of civilised society.
I choose to ignore some of these laws, this makes me a criminal. Whether I do it for evil intent, for a laugh, or because I have a strong moral objection to these laws, is IRRELEVANT. In the laws eyes, I am a criminal, the reason for breaking the law is rarely if ever considered as an excuse. Old people are put into prison for refusing to pay taxes. They are not bad people, but they ARE criminals in the eyes of the law.
You are confusing the notion of bad people and criminals. One of these is a moral issue, the other is to do with the breaking of some (for the most part) easy to understand guidelines for living in our country.
You can argue that you didn't mean to harm anyone and that you regret your actions, and you may be able to convince me, but you are still a criminal whether you like it or not. Just deal with it as was said before.
Maolin Shonks wrote:
> So you all own a dictionary, congratulations.
>
> It's justice we're really talking about, not a label. I shouldn't be
> called a criminal because I wee up a wall, I shouldn't be called one
> if I'm lost somewhere and didn't know the speed of a road. I should
> be punished for these situations? You'll probably all just try to be
> funny and say yes of course :)
>
> Here's a situation that demonstrates my point (and I think Dringo's
> in a roundabout way):
> You're out in the mountains, walking with a friend, you're attached
> by rope. One of you trips, and you find yourself in the unlikely
> & unfortunate position, dangling from a cliff with friend hanging
> underneath you. You could drop and kill you both, or cut the cord, and
> save yourself. Naturally you cut the rope, shed a tear, and get down
> safe. You're a murderer now according to law and punishment.
>
> Fair?
No, it's exactly the opposite. Not about punishment. Dringo asked if people should be labelled criminals for doing certain things. By definition, a criminal is someone who commits a crime. Anyone who commits a crime. It doesn't matter if the crime is big or small, or what the crime is, you just have to have performed an action that has been stipulated as against the law.
Whether you like the connotations of the label 'criminal' is another matter. That's why Dringo objects to it - he feels it puts him in the same bracket as the Bulger killers. It does, but it's under a very, very wide umbrella.
> So you all own a dictionary, congratulations.
>
> It's justice we're really talking about, not a label. I shouldn't be
> called a criminal because I wee up a wall, I shouldn't be called one
> if I'm lost somewhere and didn't know the speed of a road. I should
> be punished for these situations? You'll probably all just try to be
> funny and say yes of course :)
>
> Here's a situation that demonstrates my point (and I think Dringo's
> in a roundabout way):
> You're out in the mountains, walking with a friend, you're attached
> by rope. One of you trips, and you find yourself in the unlikely
> & unfortunate position, dangling from a cliff with friend hanging
> underneath you. You could drop and kill you both, or cut the cord, and
> save yourself. Naturally you cut the rope, shed a tear, and get down
> safe. You're a murderer now according to law and punishment.
>
> Fair?
No, it's exactly the opposite. Not about punishment. Dringo asked if people should be labelled criminals for doing certain things. By definition, a criminal is someone who commits a crime. Anyone who commits a crime. It doesn't matter if the crime is big or small, or what the crime is, you just have to have performed an action that has been stipulated as against the law.
Whether you like the connotations of the label 'criminal' is another matter. That's why Dringo objects to it - he feels it puts him in the same bracket as the Bulger killers. It does, but it's under a very, very wide umbrella.
Smedlos wrote:
> That's a definite grey area. Say you're walking around a shop and
> have a CD in your hand which you are going to pay for and then walk
> out of the shop forgetting you are holding it. You cannot be
> prosecuted for it.
...which is why that is considered to be a defence. Various people have been found Not Guilty of theft on that very basis (most famously, annoyingly bland uber-git Richard Madeley).
You could be prosecuted though, if the CPS felt that they could prove it was not forgetfulness on your part.
>
> Fall asleep at the wheel of a car and kill someone you can.
Are you Yoda?!?
> Both
> situations no intent but one you can be prosecuted for and the other
> you cannot. Double standards there.
That latter situation is recklessness; if you're driving whilst tired, and you know the effects of falling asleep at the wheel but continue to drive, you're being reckless. Therefore, you have the intent.
> That's a definite grey area. Say you're walking around a shop and
> have a CD in your hand which you are going to pay for and then walk
> out of the shop forgetting you are holding it. You cannot be
> prosecuted for it.
...which is why that is considered to be a defence. Various people have been found Not Guilty of theft on that very basis (most famously, annoyingly bland uber-git Richard Madeley).
You could be prosecuted though, if the CPS felt that they could prove it was not forgetfulness on your part.
>
> Fall asleep at the wheel of a car and kill someone you can.
Are you Yoda?!?
> Both
> situations no intent but one you can be prosecuted for and the other
> you cannot. Double standards there.
That latter situation is recklessness; if you're driving whilst tired, and you know the effects of falling asleep at the wheel but continue to drive, you're being reckless. Therefore, you have the intent.
Light wrote:
> What none of us have addressed is the issue of intent; it is critical
> to the legal definition of crime.
That's a definite grey area. Say you're walking around a shop and have a CD in your hand which you are going to pay for and then walk out of the shop forgetting you are holding it. You cannot be prosecuted for it.
Fall asleep at the wheel of a car and kill someone you can. Both situations no intent but one you can be prosecuted for and the other you cannot. Double standards there.
> What none of us have addressed is the issue of intent; it is critical
> to the legal definition of crime.
That's a definite grey area. Say you're walking around a shop and have a CD in your hand which you are going to pay for and then walk out of the shop forgetting you are holding it. You cannot be prosecuted for it.
Fall asleep at the wheel of a car and kill someone you can. Both situations no intent but one you can be prosecuted for and the other you cannot. Double standards there.
Maolin Shonks wrote:
> Stuff
What none of us have addressed is the issue of intent; it is critical to the legal definition of crime.
One must either;
1. Intend to commit the crime, or
2. Be reckless as to whether they committed it or not.
When one is ignorant of the law, that's when common sense makes one of it's (rare) appearences in law. If a reasonable man could not have been expected to know about the law, then that is a defence to the crime one is accused of. If a reasonable man should really have been expected to know, then ignorance is not a defence.
And don't get me started on traffic and driving offences; the pettier ones don't have any defence allowed.
[edit] The situation Maolin describes would, I think, probably be regarded as Death by Misadventure in the inevitable coroners hearing.
> Stuff
What none of us have addressed is the issue of intent; it is critical to the legal definition of crime.
One must either;
1. Intend to commit the crime, or
2. Be reckless as to whether they committed it or not.
When one is ignorant of the law, that's when common sense makes one of it's (rare) appearences in law. If a reasonable man could not have been expected to know about the law, then that is a defence to the crime one is accused of. If a reasonable man should really have been expected to know, then ignorance is not a defence.
And don't get me started on traffic and driving offences; the pettier ones don't have any defence allowed.
[edit] The situation Maolin describes would, I think, probably be regarded as Death by Misadventure in the inevitable coroners hearing.
Blank wrote:
> Nope, but committing a crime does. You commit a crime, you're a
> criminal, by the very definition of the terms. The fact that
> we're all criminals doesn't change that.
>
> The issue here is that Dringo and others are confusing 'criminal'
> with 'evil wrongdoer deserving of social ostracisation and severe
> punishment.' That's not what it means. That's just a connotation.
So you all own a dictionary, congratulations.
It's justice we're really talking about, not a label. I shouldn't be called a criminal because I wee up a wall, I shouldn't be called one if I'm lost somewhere and didn't know the speed of a road. I should be punished for these situations? You'll probably all just try to be funny and say yes of course :)
Here's a situation that demonstrates my point (and I think Dringo's in a roundabout way):
You're out in the mountains, walking with a friend, you're attached by rope. One of you trips, and you find yourself in the unlikely & unfortunate position, dangling from a cliff with friend hanging underneath you. You could drop and kill you both, or cut the cord, and save yourself. Naturally you cut the rope, shed a tear, and get down safe. You're a murderer now according to law and punishment.
Fair?
> Nope, but committing a crime does. You commit a crime, you're a
> criminal, by the very definition of the terms. The fact that
> we're all criminals doesn't change that.
>
> The issue here is that Dringo and others are confusing 'criminal'
> with 'evil wrongdoer deserving of social ostracisation and severe
> punishment.' That's not what it means. That's just a connotation.
So you all own a dictionary, congratulations.
It's justice we're really talking about, not a label. I shouldn't be called a criminal because I wee up a wall, I shouldn't be called one if I'm lost somewhere and didn't know the speed of a road. I should be punished for these situations? You'll probably all just try to be funny and say yes of course :)
Here's a situation that demonstrates my point (and I think Dringo's in a roundabout way):
You're out in the mountains, walking with a friend, you're attached by rope. One of you trips, and you find yourself in the unlikely & unfortunate position, dangling from a cliff with friend hanging underneath you. You could drop and kill you both, or cut the cord, and save yourself. Naturally you cut the rope, shed a tear, and get down safe. You're a murderer now according to law and punishment.
Fair?
Maolin Shonks wrote:
> What he's clearly saying is that people aren't perfect, and just
> because we aren't perfect that doesn't make us criminals.
Nope, but committing a crime does. You commit a crime, you're a criminal, by the very definition of the terms. The fact that we're all criminals doesn't change that.
The issue here is that Dringo and others are confusing 'criminal' with 'evil wrongdoer deserving of social ostracisation and severe punishment.' That's not what it means. That's just a connotation.
> What he's clearly saying is that people aren't perfect, and just
> because we aren't perfect that doesn't make us criminals.
Nope, but committing a crime does. You commit a crime, you're a criminal, by the very definition of the terms. The fact that we're all criminals doesn't change that.
The issue here is that Dringo and others are confusing 'criminal' with 'evil wrongdoer deserving of social ostracisation and severe punishment.' That's not what it means. That's just a connotation.
Criminal
Dringo wrote:
> What defines a criminal exactly?
crim·i·nal Pronunciation (krm-nl)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
3.
a. Guilty of crime.
b. Characteristic of a criminal.
4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.
n. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.
> What defines a criminal exactly?
crim·i·nal Pronunciation (krm-nl)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
3.
a. Guilty of crime.
b. Characteristic of a criminal.
4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.
n. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.
Maolin Shonks wrote:
> I doubt very much whether any of you always drive within the speed
> limit. I doubt very very much whether any of you have never taken a
> piddle up a wall in town after a heavy drinking night. I very much
> doubt you all only started drinking at 18. We're all criminals
> together, and I can totally see Dringo's point of view. All of you
> sit here on the fence pretending like 'the time suits the crime' but
> alas we all know different deep down.
Yeah, I fully admit that I've broken the law. the difference is, I'm not winging on about the "label".
Considering you know, he went to court and got found guilty and all that.
> I doubt very much whether any of you always drive within the speed
> limit. I doubt very very much whether any of you have never taken a
> piddle up a wall in town after a heavy drinking night. I very much
> doubt you all only started drinking at 18. We're all criminals
> together, and I can totally see Dringo's point of view. All of you
> sit here on the fence pretending like 'the time suits the crime' but
> alas we all know different deep down.
Yeah, I fully admit that I've broken the law. the difference is, I'm not winging on about the "label".
Considering you know, he went to court and got found guilty and all that.
Page: