The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Duck Fish wrote:
> If you go 5-10 mph over the speed limit and avoid cameras, nobody
> cares, in reality it's considered pretty normal.
>
> If you speed and get caught by a camera, it's license points and a
> fine.
>
> If you speed and hit a pedestrian who stepped into the road suddenly,
> you could be on a manslaughter rap.
>
>
> But in reality, the same action could lead to any of the three
> consequences. It comes down to factors beyond your control.
The difference is, pedestrians generally get hit in built-up or at least populated areas. Breaking the speed limit by ten mph in a built up area is a lot different to breaking it on a mountain road with no blind bends and no houses within twenty miles.
Cameras are generally placed near accident blackspots, or where there is known to be a lot of speeding (ie through manual speed camera testing etc). If you get caught by a camera, you're generally speeding in a dangerous area and you've ignored the camera/were going too fast to slow down for it (but in that case you were almost certainly more than ten mph over the limit).
Context is everything. If I wave a knife in a downward motion when I'm alone in my bedroom, it's not a crime. If I do so when there's somebody standing in front of me, I'm suddenly a murderer. Crazy.
> If you go 5-10 mph over the speed limit and avoid cameras, nobody
> cares, in reality it's considered pretty normal.
>
> If you speed and get caught by a camera, it's license points and a
> fine.
>
> If you speed and hit a pedestrian who stepped into the road suddenly,
> you could be on a manslaughter rap.
>
>
> But in reality, the same action could lead to any of the three
> consequences. It comes down to factors beyond your control.
The difference is, pedestrians generally get hit in built-up or at least populated areas. Breaking the speed limit by ten mph in a built up area is a lot different to breaking it on a mountain road with no blind bends and no houses within twenty miles.
Cameras are generally placed near accident blackspots, or where there is known to be a lot of speeding (ie through manual speed camera testing etc). If you get caught by a camera, you're generally speeding in a dangerous area and you've ignored the camera/were going too fast to slow down for it (but in that case you were almost certainly more than ten mph over the limit).
Context is everything. If I wave a knife in a downward motion when I'm alone in my bedroom, it's not a crime. If I do so when there's somebody standing in front of me, I'm suddenly a murderer. Crazy.
Dringo wrote:
> It is the way it is done though.
>
> The Jamie Bulger killers and I fit into the same "criminal"
> bracket.
>
> How the hell is that right?
You also fit into the 'people' bracket, the 'male' bracket...
It's still your interpretation of the bracket's definition that prescribes your reaction to sharing it with them.
To the general public, there is a tendency to associate criminality with immorality. But that could be considered inaccurate, or an over-generalisation.
An interesting point that I was thinking about, which Dringo touched on, was the difference in severity of punishment depending on matters outside your influence.
If you go 5-10 mph over the speed limit and avoid cameras, nobody cares, in reality it's considered pretty normal.
If you speed and get caught by a camera, it's license points and a fine.
If you speed and hit a pedestrian who stepped into the road suddenly, you could be on a manslaughter rap.
But in reality, the same action could lead to any of the three consequences. It comes down to factors beyond your control.
Obviously you don't expect social reactions to be rational. But between the second and third scenarios, the discrepancy of chance on punishment for potentially identical offences is huge.
> It is the way it is done though.
>
> The Jamie Bulger killers and I fit into the same "criminal"
> bracket.
>
> How the hell is that right?
You also fit into the 'people' bracket, the 'male' bracket...
It's still your interpretation of the bracket's definition that prescribes your reaction to sharing it with them.
To the general public, there is a tendency to associate criminality with immorality. But that could be considered inaccurate, or an over-generalisation.
An interesting point that I was thinking about, which Dringo touched on, was the difference in severity of punishment depending on matters outside your influence.
If you go 5-10 mph over the speed limit and avoid cameras, nobody cares, in reality it's considered pretty normal.
If you speed and get caught by a camera, it's license points and a fine.
If you speed and hit a pedestrian who stepped into the road suddenly, you could be on a manslaughter rap.
But in reality, the same action could lead to any of the three consequences. It comes down to factors beyond your control.
Obviously you don't expect social reactions to be rational. But between the second and third scenarios, the discrepancy of chance on punishment for potentially identical offences is huge.
Dringo wrote:
> But I'd overhaul what defines a criminal. I deserve that
> "punishment" or as I see it "repayment"... but I
> don't accept the label of criminal. I'm hardly an evil man with the
> intent to harm.
I don't think that you should associate the words evil and criminal. The two are completely separate. And intent to harm is not a prerequisite either.
If your recklessness was to end someone life, in your eyes because 'you didn't mean it', you're not a criminal. Being a criminal has nothing to do with being evil - I'm sure not one drink driver in the world gets into his/her car thinking "I hope I kill someone!".
Intent is irrelevant to criminality, although proving intent can cause the punishment to increase in severity. And being 'evil' has nothing to do with it. In my view there is no such thing as good and evil, only points of view. Some people would view the london bombers as evil, some see them as heroes - the point is what they did was against our laws.
> But I'd overhaul what defines a criminal. I deserve that
> "punishment" or as I see it "repayment"... but I
> don't accept the label of criminal. I'm hardly an evil man with the
> intent to harm.
I don't think that you should associate the words evil and criminal. The two are completely separate. And intent to harm is not a prerequisite either.
If your recklessness was to end someone life, in your eyes because 'you didn't mean it', you're not a criminal. Being a criminal has nothing to do with being evil - I'm sure not one drink driver in the world gets into his/her car thinking "I hope I kill someone!".
Intent is irrelevant to criminality, although proving intent can cause the punishment to increase in severity. And being 'evil' has nothing to do with it. In my view there is no such thing as good and evil, only points of view. Some people would view the london bombers as evil, some see them as heroes - the point is what they did was against our laws.
Cycloon wrote:
> Isn't a criminal someone who breaks the law?
>
> Criminal isn't necessarily a moral term.
It is the way it is done though.
The Jamie Bulger killers and I fit into the same "criminal" bracket.
How the hell is that right?
> Isn't a criminal someone who breaks the law?
>
> Criminal isn't necessarily a moral term.
It is the way it is done though.
The Jamie Bulger killers and I fit into the same "criminal" bracket.
How the hell is that right?
J Nash wrote:
> Here's one my Mum said the other day. A leaf lands on the car. My Mum
> says "Leaf us alone".
Yep, she's a criminal.
> Here's one my Mum said the other day. A leaf lands on the car. My Mum
> says "Leaf us alone".
Yep, she's a criminal.
Well you certainly do in some cases. It is indirectly - criminal due to rampant serial killings = immoral. Criminal through lack of care = immoral? Perhaps. Nah.
Cycloon wrote:
> Criminal isn't necessarily a moral term.
Agreed but people wrongly see a criminal as immoral.
> Criminal isn't necessarily a moral term.
Agreed but people wrongly see a criminal as immoral.
Isn't a criminal someone who breaks the law?
Criminal isn't necessarily a moral term.
Criminal isn't necessarily a moral term.
Dringo wrote:
> Then again, for driving offences, it might be best to keep a record of
> that for any potential driving jobs.
>
> Or it only gets flagged up depending on your job.
>
> So lets say you drove, fell asleep, and knocked someone down and
> didn't kill them. You got punished, maybe a few weeks in prison or a
> community punishment or somet.
>
> You go for a job as a waitrose office employee. They check you up,
> select the job description, and nothing. Not a thing.
>
> But you go for a job as a lorry driver. They check you up, select the
> most accurate job description, and bang! a record for driving tired.
>
>
> Just saying that a criminal record really effects things. I mean I
> have conviently left mine off my CV.
Agreed. If it is relevant to your job it should be left on but if not it should not be disclosed. Like you say with the driving falling asleep at the wheel of a lorry has the potential for a huge disaster and if you apply for a lorry driving job your employer should know.
> Then again, for driving offences, it might be best to keep a record of
> that for any potential driving jobs.
>
> Or it only gets flagged up depending on your job.
>
> So lets say you drove, fell asleep, and knocked someone down and
> didn't kill them. You got punished, maybe a few weeks in prison or a
> community punishment or somet.
>
> You go for a job as a waitrose office employee. They check you up,
> select the job description, and nothing. Not a thing.
>
> But you go for a job as a lorry driver. They check you up, select the
> most accurate job description, and bang! a record for driving tired.
>
>
> Just saying that a criminal record really effects things. I mean I
> have conviently left mine off my CV.
Agreed. If it is relevant to your job it should be left on but if not it should not be disclosed. Like you say with the driving falling asleep at the wheel of a lorry has the potential for a huge disaster and if you apply for a lorry driving job your employer should know.
Then again, for driving offences, it might be best to keep a record of that for any potential driving jobs.
Or it only gets flagged up depending on your job.
So lets say you drove, fell asleep, and knocked someone down and didn't kill them. You got punished, maybe a few weeks in prison or a community punishment or somet.
You go for a job as a waitrose office employee. They check you up, select the job description, and nothing. Not a thing.
But you go for a job as a lorry driver. They check you up, select the most accurate job description, and bang! a record for driving tired.
Just saying that a criminal record really effects things. I mean I have conviently left mine off my CV.
Or it only gets flagged up depending on your job.
So lets say you drove, fell asleep, and knocked someone down and didn't kill them. You got punished, maybe a few weeks in prison or a community punishment or somet.
You go for a job as a waitrose office employee. They check you up, select the job description, and nothing. Not a thing.
But you go for a job as a lorry driver. They check you up, select the most accurate job description, and bang! a record for driving tired.
Just saying that a criminal record really effects things. I mean I have conviently left mine off my CV.
Page: