| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sincerely hope that people who sent death threats are all caught and put in jail for this.I couldn't agree more. This kind of threat should always be followed up, and punished to the maximum extent of the law.No. Prison should be reserved only for those who cannot function in society and/or deserve the death penalty, but are not receiving the death penalty.
This kind of offense deserves no more than a fine. Anyone who thinks simple words deserve prison time has zero concept of what life in prison is like or what life after prison is like.
This may strike you as a nitpick, but the distinction is more important than you're probably aware of. Hama called for jail time. Jail and prison are distinct; they are not interchangeable (at least, not in the United States). Jails are operated at the county level and are limited to short-term (< 1 year) incarceration or holding those awaiting trial. Prisons are operated at the state or federal level and are reserved for inmates serving terms of 1 year or more; accordingly, they tend to house "career" criminals, violent offenders, and a persisent prison-culture environment. Jails avoid many of these issues.
While I'm not an advocate of incarceration as a primary means of addressing criminality, replacing confinement with a fine is a really poor alternative.
Death threats are serious, and are an example of speech that does not deserve protection.
Pardon the curiosity, but which branch?
Air Force, though I narrowly avoided the mistake of joining the Army.
For example, I don't find New Yorkers rude - I find the NYC lifestyle hasty and restless, after living with an uncle in Harlem, and he was something of a hstling Jazz musician, which you would think was a bit more laid back than the typical job in the city. Nope, everyone, top down, lives hard and fast, or so my experience with the city indicated.
Maybe rude is the wrong term. It's just a sort of self-absorbed cynicism and...I don't know, maybe "inconsiderate" is the right term.
...as my posts in the George Zimmerman verdict thread can attest.
No offense, but I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.
Death threats are serious, and are an example of speech that does not deserve protection.
I don't think fining speech can be considered protecting free speech.
Death threats are serious. That doesn't mean they deserve prison time.
(since most people don't know the difference between jail time and prison time, I assume they mean prison time)
|
Death threats are serious, and are an example of speech that does not deserve protection.I don't think fining speech can be considered protecting free speech.
Death threats are serious. That doesn't mean they deserve prison time.
(since most people don't know the difference between jail time and prison time, I assume they mean prison time)
A fine is nothing. Unless it is astronomical. What you're saying is basically, i threaten someone's life (or their kids etc...) and cause them trauma, fear and a bit of paranoia. And for that i am fined a certain amount of money. So what?
They should go to jail. And i honestly couldn't care less about their mental state.
Death threats are serious, and are an example of speech that does not deserve protection.I don't think fining speech can be considered protecting free speech.
Death threats are serious. That doesn't mean they deserve prison time.
(since most people don't know the difference between jail time and prison time, I assume they mean prison time)
A fine is nothing. Unless it is astronomical. What you're saying is basically, i threaten someone's life (or their kids etc...) and cause them trauma, fear and a bit of paranoia. And for that i am fined a certain amount of money. So what?
They should go to jail. And i honestly couldn't care less about their mental state.
How is a fine nothing? For most of america such a fine could make them lose their house.
Besides a deterrent is a deterrent, using the argument against the death penalty, the rate of crime doesn't decrease just because the punishment decreases.
Furthermore, we can use the logic of why rape doesn't receive the death penalty, but murder does. If both received the same penalty then it would be in the rapist best interest to kill their victims after they were done to eliminate a witness.
If a death threat is punished the same as attempted murder, then why would someone who said a death threat not try to follow through with it?
Some prison time isn't the same as murder/attempted murder.
It really is though. Try living a decent life as a felon.
Take someone who already had trouble functioning in society and make it even harder. Fantastic system!
I agree it sucks. It's still not the same as decades behind bars.Some prison time isn't the same as murder/attempted murder.It really is though. Try living a decent life as a felon.
Take someone who already had trouble functioning in society and make it even harder. Fantastic system!
Yeah one gets decent healthcare for a longer time...
I don't think fining speech can be considered protecting free speech.
No, probably not, but limiting punishment to a fine is a really, really poor option.
Death threats are serious. That doesn't mean they deserve prison time.
(since most people don't know the difference between jail time and prison time, I assume they mean prison time)
I think they probably deserve a recommended sentence that includes the possibility of jail time. I think that sentencing should, however, remain up to the discretion of the judge.
How is a fine nothing? For most of america such a fine could make them lose their house.
This is the sort of thing you don't want to impose. Fines are tricky. If you set the bar at a low amount, you are offering very little deterrent to those with substantial means; even if they're caught, it's very unlikely that the state will fight particularly hard for a conviction given the mild nature of the punishment and the means of the accused to defend himself with adequate counsel, and even if a conviction was handed down it would be shrugged off as pocket change.
However, if you set the bar at a high number you risk as situation like a 14 year-old with poor self-regulatory skills mouthing off to an acquaintance online and suddenly the parents are looking at a fine they can't afford that will put them out of their home/retirement/college funds/etc. That isn't a good way to handle criminality, either.
Besides a deterrent is a deterrent, using the argument against the death penalty, the rate of crime doesn't decrease just because the punishment decreases.
There are strong deterrents and weak deterrents. There are also just deterrents and unjust deterrents. And there are deterrents that assist in rehabilitation and reintroduction to society, and there are deterrents that contribute to recidivism.
Furthermore, we can use the logic of why rape doesn't receive the death penalty, but murder does. If both received the same penalty then it would be in the rapist best interest to kill their victims after they were done to eliminate a witness.
That's sort of half an argument. While perhaps true for some rapists, the majority of cases of rape would likely not suddenly transform into homicides just by a change in punishment.
It's also worth noting that a number of U.S. states already have laws on the book authorizing the death penalty in special circumstances of rape.
Either way, the death penalty is a terrible idea in general.
If a death threat is punished the same as attempted murder, then why would someone who said a death threat not try to follow through with it?
Because - and this may surprise you - most people do not simply go from threatening someone to killing someone just because they will not be punished any more harshly.
Consider yourself, for a moment. Imagine that, in a moment of foolish rage in a bar, you threaten to kill someone. When you calm down enough to internalize the fact that what you just did was punishable by death, how likely is it that you would shrug, say, "Screw it," and kill the other guy?
Regardless, no one is arguing that a death threat be punished the same as attempted murder.
Some prison time isn't the same as murder/attempted murder.It really is though. Try living a decent life as a felon.
Take someone who already had trouble functioning in society and make it even harder. Fantastic system!
Thus, jail time. No felony conviction (and thus no long-term institutional consequences), a short time behind bars, no crippling fine, enough disincentive to discourage the practice from happening (both again, and in the first place by example), and opportunity for targeted treatment while incarcerated.
I think Facebook is actually a better answer than prison.
For example, more websites are turning to requiring you to post using your facebook account in the comments section. This means that if you behave badly, people can look at your friends list and start telling them about your bad behavior. I've heard more than one story of a twitter user who was made to apologize, otherwise people were going to send links of what he had said to his mother.
Obviously that one wouldn't work on everyone, but I think the overall concept of reducing anonymity on the internet and bringing social consequences to bear is a fairly effective method to curbing extremely bad social behavior.
I think Facebook is actually a better answer than prison.
For example, more websites are turning to requiring you to post using your facebook account in the comments section. This means that if you behave badly, people can look at your friends list and start telling them about your bad behavior. I've heard more than one story of a twitter user who was made to apologize, otherwise people were going to send links of what he had said to his mother.
Obviously that one wouldn't work on everyone, but I think the overall concept of reducing anonymity on the internet and bringing social consequences to bear is a fairly effective method to curbing extremely bad social behavior.
Meh. I'm not at all fond of Facebook being any more necessary than it already is.
Nor is it that hard to make throwaway facebook accounts that don't connect to your real life.
Is any solution ever going to perfect?
You're also reading something I didn't write. I didn't say "facebook is the only answer". In fact, the last paragraph I don't talk about facebook specifically, but rather some of the core concepts of why it's an effective approach.
I don't particularly like FB either, but it is a useful frame of reference AND it is a method currently employed by multiple websites as a way to reduce jerkiness in their comments section.
I find the prison discussion to be pretty laughably bad.
There's a big difference here.
That kid is facing up to 10 years in PRISON for a silly comment he made.
What others are proposing as far as JAIL time is nothing of the sort.
Slap 'em in jail for a few days to a week, and it has no lasting consequences...but it acts as a good deterrent.
I am no expert on American law... but jail is, as I understand it, not something you are sentenced to, but a place to keep people suspected for serious crimes while the investigation gets done. So what you guys are actually saying, again, if I understand it, that something never meant as punishment, jail time, be used as the police sees fit? Or should the courts start using jails to punish people, when jails are prisons that have not been adapted to the actual rights someone in prison has? I.e. no rehabilitation and suchlike, because jails are holding areas?
I admit, I may have misunderstood something seriously here, but I don't actually think so. And if I haven't... please don't weigh in on discussions about criminality and punishment in the future, okay?
Minor crimes can get you sentenced to jail time. Any sentencing less than a year.
If you get arrested for, I dunno, reckless driving or something and get sentenced to a few months in jail (note, I actually DON'T know the precise sentence for something like that, this is just an example), you go to jail, and then are released.
If you break your probation, you go back to jail (most of the time), and then are released later (usually back on probation), as my uncle can attest to.
So yeah. You're mistaken.
So jails are cheaper holding areas that in the US are used as punishment also, for short sentences. Because they are far cheaper, in that they have less rehabilitation, correct? How lovely. People like you have already implemented that then.
I wanted to write more on this, because frankly, this discussion lives up to its name, but I really can't. Bleh.
I am no expert on American law... but jail is, as I understand it, not something you are sentenced to, but a place to keep people suspected for serious crimes while the investigation gets done.
Jail is both of those things. It is where those formally accused of crimes are held pending trial (absent bail/ROR), and it is also where those convicted of misdemeanor crimes are incarcerated, in the event that their sentence includes serving time. Jails house prisoners for sentences of up to one year (the limit of misdemeanor sentencing).
So what you guys are actually saying, again, if I understand it, that something never meant as punishment, jail time, be used as the police sees fit?
I think it's pretty clear that jailing is a form of punishment.
Or should the courts start using jails to punish people, when jails are prisons that have not been adapted to the actual rights someone in prison has? I.e. no rehabilitation and suchlike, because jails are holding areas?
Jails are not simply holding areas. They are incarceration facilities run at the county level.
I admit, I may have misunderstood something seriously here, but I don't actually think so. And if I haven't... please don't weigh in on discussions about criminality and punishment in the future, okay?
Wait, what? So if we were wrong about something (we aren't), we can't weigh in in the future? Do you hold yourself to that standard? Because not understanding that jail time is a common, accepted, legal form of punishment for less severe crimes is a pretty massive hole in one's knowledge in the middle of a discussion about incarceration. Will you continue to weigh in on discussions about criminality and punishment? Mind you, I don't think that making a mistake like this ought to disqualify someone from participation; learning is a process. But you do seem to think it should disqualify someone. Were you prepared to accept your own judgment?
So jails are cheaper holding areas that in the US are used as punishment also, for short sentences. Because they are far cheaper, in that they have less rehabilitation, correct? How lovely. People like you have already implemented that then.
I really, really don't think you're familiar enough with the penal system to make statements like this.
My county's jail, for instance, has internal facilities for educational and vocational training for inmates, in addition to extensive medical facilities (which are more than capable of handling substance abuse rehabilitation).
There's a big difference here.
That kid is facing up to 10 years in PRISON for a silly comment he made.
What others are proposing as far as JAIL time is nothing of the sort.
Slap 'em in jail for a few days to a week, and it has no lasting consequences...but it acts as a good deterrent.
Too short a time and it isn't really a deterrent, we just return to the fine issue.
Too short a time and it isn't really a deterrent, we just return to the fine issue.There's a big difference here.
That kid is facing up to 10 years in PRISON for a silly comment he made.
What others are proposing as far as JAIL time is nothing of the sort.
Slap 'em in jail for a few days to a week, and it has no lasting consequences...but it acts as a good deterrent.
Really? Being threatened with three months incarceration isn't enough to modify your behavior significantly? Come on.
|
|
Really? Being threatened with three months incarceration isn't enough to modify your behavior significantly? Come on.Too short a time and it isn't really a deterrent, we just return to the fine issue.There's a big difference here.
That kid is facing up to 10 years in PRISON for a silly comment he made.
What others are proposing as far as JAIL time is nothing of the sort.
Slap 'em in jail for a few days to a week, and it has no lasting consequences...but it acts as a good deterrent.
It would be for me, oh yeah...
Really? Being threatened with three months incarceration isn't enough to modify your behavior significantly? Come on.Too short a time and it isn't really a deterrent, we just return to the fine issue.There's a big difference here.
That kid is facing up to 10 years in PRISON for a silly comment he made.
What others are proposing as far as JAIL time is nothing of the sort.
Slap 'em in jail for a few days to a week, and it has no lasting consequences...but it acts as a good deterrent.
Three months counts as "too short of a time" (you'll notice I responded to someone suggesting a few days to a week)? Yeah, come on indeed.
Three months counts as "too short of a time" (you'll notice I responded to someone suggesting a few days to a week)? Yeah, come on indeed.Really? Being threatened with three months incarceration isn't enough to modify your behavior significantly? Come on.Too short a time and it isn't really a deterrent, we just return to the fine issue.There's a big difference here.
That kid is facing up to 10 years in PRISON for a silly comment he made.
What others are proposing as far as JAIL time is nothing of the sort.
Slap 'em in jail for a few days to a week, and it has no lasting consequences...but it acts as a good deterrent.
If someone threats me with a few days of jail in response to a particular behavior, I will be much less inclined to continue.
The Bill Hicks routine & anonymous people who make jokes about cruel side of human behavior are both a satire & take them both out of context it's vile or whatever you want it to be. I do know the difference between just flat out threat that sure you got something to charge them with like conspiracy etc, but if there's instances of messages where no threat can be seen with only her seeing things in message that aren't there then jailing someone for a crime they didn't do is also an injustice.
Yea I don't see how jail time for satire of human cruelty deserves jailtime that seems like a waste of everyone's time. If you'd rather no jokes of darker behavior as a whole what else do you include as jokes about suicide, self destruction, depression, atrocities are also satire material. If you want thought crime for those too I hope you'd pay for upkeep of more overcrowded prisons.
|
|
A comedian doing that for money is one thing.
Some random douchebag telling a woman that he wants to slaughter her family while she watches tied to a chair is another. And that type of person should be held responsible for their words. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. But for some things you can say there are and should be consequences.
Yea I don't see how jail time for satire of human cruelty deserves jailtime that seems like a waste of everyone's time.
I want some clarity on this before I pass judgment on your basic humanity. You believe that people who threaten a writer's children's lives on an internet forum because they're angry about what she wrote for a video game are engaged in satire?
So jails are cheaper holding areas that in the US are used as punishment also, for short sentences. Because they are far cheaper, in that they have less rehabilitation, correct? How lovely. People like you have already implemented that then.I really, really don't think you're familiar enough with the penal system to make statements like this.
My county's jail, for instance, has internal facilities for educational and vocational training for inmates, in addition to extensive medical facilities (which are more than capable of handling substance abuse rehabilitation).
The real swing issue being, of course, that this depends very largely on the revenue stream of the county in which the facility is located.
Too short a time and it isn't really a deterrent, we just return to the fine issue.There's a big difference here.
That kid is facing up to 10 years in PRISON for a silly comment he made.
What others are proposing as far as JAIL time is nothing of the sort.
Slap 'em in jail for a few days to a week, and it has no lasting consequences...but it acts as a good deterrent.
The problem is more likely the time between commission of the offense and actual incarceration is significantly long enough to lessen any real deterrence effect.
If someone threats me with a few days of jail in response to a particular behavior, I will be much less inclined to continue.
Well if someone threatens me with a fine, I would also be less inclined to continue. But that is how I roll.
I said before blatantly obvious threats should be prosecuted including context of any conversation pertaining to it. The satire argument is from if the conversation/s were taken out of context & in context showing an unrealistic threat. The examples I seen her use could also just be fringes & that does not include any she didn't see as what she saw was post only not before & after responses. It would've helped her if EA got a show trial on the forumers to sue them till they have nothing then press release it to gaming media during her time.
My view on humanity is simple every person can lie, cheat, steal, or worse to another directly or by proxy therefore I'm not worried about it.
basically words without context are meaningless
OTOH, before we jail someone we have this process called a trial, where the state gets to present evidence that the person in question committed a crime and that person's representatives get to dispute that evidence and present counter evidence as they choose. No one is talking about jailing anyone based on one alleged victim's word.
Don't confuse jailing with putting someone in prison. You can be jailed without a trial. Just see the story I posted earlier of the 19 year old who was jailed for 5 months because his family couldn't post bail and only got out because someone posted it for him. He is still awaiting trial.
In Sweden, jails are a repeat story that aches in the newspapers every so often. Due to us not having a third of our populations incarcerated, conditions are relatively humane for prisoners here, and jails are the serious problem. They are only holding areas, no programs, nothing, and suicides are somewhat frequent, as is mistreatment like not getting to wear clothes. Much of this is also that the justice system does not seem to care about the psychological effect of first telling people they are suspected of, say, child pornography possession, then just locking them away until further notice. The other part is of course that these days, maximum jail times are routinely exceeded. Roughly then, every suspect put in jail is set in solitary confinement, something tightly regulated on the prison side, with a heavy psychological toll... And none of them have been sentenced yet.
THAT is why I despise the idea. We have actual prison facilities for short sentences as well, in lower security prisons.
Many things are good about Sweden, but our minister of justice is a flat out moron. Beatrice Ask had a brilliant idea which she had the regrettable guts to go public with: Everyone suspected of having bought sex should get a special letter sent home to their address telling them so, and it should be in bright, clashy colours. Needless to say, this did not go over well even here... But she remains our minister of justice, regrettably.
And the story of the guy making "terroristic threats"... First, what he wrote was far from specific to any person. I have a hard time seeing parents everywhere pulling their kindergarten kids home. Second, he is a teenager. Third, had not some mysterious benefactor paid his bail, he would have rotted in jail for a year EVEN BEFORE TRIAL!!! The very idea that people should go to jail over stupid comments is horrible. Just wait until security camera footage is used to send masses of people to jail for saying things that someone, somewhere thought was "terroristic". I know, I probably don't have to wait for that, eh?
This is a pathetic way to treat a person. You pay huge amounts of money to essentially destroy a young man's life over a stupid comment. But you know what the worst part is? All these idiots actually thinking it is great...
If someone threats me with a few days of jail in response to a particular behavior, I will be much less inclined to continue.Well if someone threatens me with a fine, I would also be less inclined to continue. But that is how I roll.
Yes, you would. Someone with a high level of financial resources, however, will probably not find it much of a deterrent. The point of incarceration is that it's something of an equalizer. No matter what your economic status, you probably aren't keen on spending time in jail.
And the story of the guy making "terroristic threats"... First, what he wrote was far from specific to any person.
Since when is that necessary for something to be a terroristic threat? If someone says, "I'm going to blow up a building tomorrow," that's pretty freaking clearly a terroristic threat, despite it not being specific to any particular person.
I have a hard time seeing parents everywhere pulling their kindergarten kids home.
Contributing to the fear that schools may not be safe for children is definitely a concern.
Second, he is a teenager.
Yes, and that should be taken into account when determining what punishment is warranted.
Third, had not some mysterious benefactor paid his bail, he would have rotted in jail for a year EVEN BEFORE TRIAL!!!
Yep.
The very idea that people should go to jail over stupid comments is horrible.
By "stupid" you mean "threatening", and I definitely think that they ought to warrant punishment, possibly including jail time.
Just wait until security camera footage is used to send masses of people to jail for saying things that someone, somewhere thought was "terroristic".
"I'm going to shoot up a school," is pretty clearly terroristic. I don't think any reasonable individual can think otherwise.
This is a pathetic way to treat a person.
10 years strikes me as too long. But I think some jail time is warranted.
If they actually sentence him to 10 years I'd honestly question the sanity of the judge and jury that sat that trial.
Any verdict that doesn't end up with some variation of "...incarcerated for 5 months with time served" is way too harsh IMO.
So, a year in jail before trial, because of someone interpreting something he wrote as "terroristic". And I assume that is what you want, then, with your fine idea of how to deter people from writing stupid things on the net? A year in jail, half a million dollars fine, and then, if it truly wasn't more than a stupid comment, a week or so in jail? Or would he then be judged to have done his time???
Uh-huh.
If they actually sentence him to 10 years I'd honestly question the sanity of the judge and jury that sat that trial.
Any verdict that doesn't end up with some variation of "...incarcerated for 5 months with time served" is way too harsh IMO.
And insane judges and juries is a new concept... because...?
Someone called it "terroristic", so precisely anything goes. With any luck he'll get declared an "illegal combatant" and sent to Guantanamo.