Some people should die for their crimes.

[Fnoop]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ping-jail.html

This is disgusting.

Death would be too good for these people, this country sickens me to the core sometimes.

[Hoonigan]

I've said this once, and I'll say it again, please, for the sake of all of us, stop reading that bloody paper! It's absolute nonsense.

[Lucio]

It sickens me more than people think that it's morally acceptable to kill someone just because they're retarded low lifes.

Sure the guy should have been locked up for a few years but killing him? You're as bad as he is if you think that's the answer.

[aidanjt]

Thank goodness they didn't link to any copyright infringing files.

[TheAnimus]

Thank goodness they didn't link to any copyright infringing files.

I'm guessing this is a comment because of the sentances they got been low?

But IANAL, the prison sentances available for assult are higher than you can get for copyright infringment?

[Disturbedguy]

I've said this once, and I'll say it again, please, for the sake of all of us, stop reading that bloody paper! It's absolute nonsense.

To be fair in this situation, while saying they should die is wrong, the yobs getting away with what they have is wrong, the pictures in this case do back up the words. It is digusting that they have gotten away with this.

[SeriousSam]

My view on the death penalty used to be one of "maybe" as it was diificult to decide whether or not actually imprisoning someone for life was more barbaric than just ending it. However, after reading "An Innocent Man: Murder and injustice in a small town" by John Grisham. I quickly realised that whilst we live in a Democracy where people can be influenced by "righteous anger" the death penalty is just not an option. At the very least our systems of law and order are just not robust enough to not make mistakes and he cost of these is just too high irrespective of the crime. More than that though it is a slippery slope, whereby once it is on the statute book the crimes for which it becomes applicable can be increased in the wake of public indignation, irrespective of rational reasoning.

[jim]

It's not exactly surprising that people react with anger when someone attacks another person, is taken to court, and leaves without a prison sentence then celebrates on the steps - whatever the facts.

[Saracen]

While, personally, I agree that some people should die for their crimes, this does not, IMHO, fit into this category. Not even close to it.

However, at least at first glance, the sentence doesn't seem appropriate for the offence, and particularly, the victim's injuries.

However, there's a few points I'd make with regard especially to this linked article. First, it's the Mail. Second, characterisation as "Thugs 1, Justice 0" isn't exactly balanced reporting. Prison is not the only form of justice, and not even always the appropriate one.

Third, ....

Tattooed, jobless Chrapkowski, 24, from Stockport, was given a 12-month suspended prison term, electronically tagged for two months and ordered to complete 160 hours unpaid work after he admitted causing grievous bodily harm.

Where do I start?

What have either tattoos or his jobless status got to do with either the circumstances of the offence, or the relevance to sentencing? Or do those with tattoos or no job somehow deserve harsher treatment? Typical Mail rabble-rousing.

Next, it's worth pointing out and stressing the last bit .... Chrapkowski admitted the offence. That gets him some leniency. So does remorse, assuming the judge believes it to be genuine. So was it genuine? I've no idea, as I wasn't there, didn't see him or hear the evidence. But it may have been. For all we know, this is a normal boozed up bloke with no history of trouble or any form of violence in his past, yet the characterisation as a "tattoo'd, jobless thug" clearly passes a value judgement on him, not just on what he did in that one, boozed-up incident. Perhaps there is a past on him that justifies the Mail's characterisation, but perhaps not. And it impacts on sentence.

If he has an otherwise clean past, and if he is genuinely remorseful, then this might well be a case where an applied prison sentence would add little. Bear in mind, the presumption of sentencing for GBH is a custodial sentence. And technically, that is what he got. It's just suspended, and subject to a fairly serious set of criteria. Break any of those criteria with good justification, and the court can immediately activate the custodial element. You might get a warning the first time, depending on the breach, but the second time, the [I]presumption/I] is that the court will activate the custodial bit, unless good reason exists not to.

And, of course, he's got tagging for a couple of months, 160 hours of community service and a 12-month threat of jail hanging over him.

He is, in my view, quite lucky to not be behind bars right now, and I'd whoop with joy in his shoes too, though I hope I'd be smart enough not to hand the Mail a great photo by doing it so publicly, so quickly. But nonetheless, it may just be genuine joy at not being behind bars, and not the contempt for the system the Mail portray it as. Or, of course, it might not.

And as for Lane, well, he contends he had no physical involvement, and appears to have been charged accordingly, so presumably, there's no convincing evidence to the contrary. His gesture seems to be shown in the light of, again, it being contempt for the system but in fact, it was (as the caption says) aimed at press photographers. We don't know how much they'd pursued him, or for that matter, what they were calling out to him, but I have to say, I have some sympathy for those expressing that particular emotion to a large percentage of the press photo corp.

All told, if we ignore the Mail's slant, we don't know whether the judge, with a non-custodial sentence, got the balance right, but then, he saw the evidence and testimony, and presumably, the usual pre-sentence report, and we didn't.

It certainly doesn't feel right, to me, to escape time behind bars for that kind of beating, but that's why we have people that actually are in possession of facts determining sentences, not the Daily Mail.

[Saracen]

It's not exactly surprising that people react with anger when someone attacks another person, is taken to court, and leaves without a prison sentence then celebrates on the steps - whatever the facts.

Technically, actually, it is a prison sentence. It's just suspended. I know what you mean, though.

[Saracen]

Thank goodness they didn't link to any copyright infringing files.

Personally, I'd rather be facing a potential 10 years for copyright than a potential life sentence for GBH.

This is a good example, though, to point out why the maximum you can get for an offence doesn't mean you will get it, or even anywhere near it, or even necessarily a custodial sentence at all. The max is reserved for the very worst examples of that particular offence.

[finlay666]

The max is reserved for the very worst examples of that particular offence.

10 Years for copying Twilight


Coincidentally (and rather off topic saying how someone was disgusted 2 people were 'let off') with the US SOPA bill, for copying a Michael Jackson song you could have gotten a longer sentence in jail than Conrad Murray (the doc convicted for his death) got.

Funny thing, crime

[abaxas]

10 Years for copying Twilight


Coincidentally (and rather off topic saying how someone was disgusted 2 people were 'let off') with the US SOPA bill, for copying a Michael Jackson song you could have gotten a longer sentence in jail than Conrad Murray (the doc convicted for his death) got.

Funny thing, crime

The problem is that control of information is what makes our economies stronger. Anything which directly effects commerce causes vastly more harm than GBH. The issue being that it is hard to see the harm as it is spread so thinly, while the GBH is easy to spot.

Since you love capitalism as you enjoy it's spoils, you should understand how it should be protected.

[Fraz]

I've said this once, and I'll say it again, please, for the sake of all of us, stop reading that bloody paper! It's absolute nonsense.

Exactly what he said - there is no worse "newspaper" than the Daily Mail. It's a hateful piece of excrement.

The whole point of the Daily Mail is to make you either angry or afraid. Generally the reporting has little to do with the truth. However, assuming there is a grain of truth in this article, it does seem the victim has been very hard done by in this particular incident.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The problem is that control of information is what makes our economies stronger. Anything which directly effects commerce causes vastly more harm than GBH. The issue being that it is hard to see the harm as it is spread so thinly, while the GBH is easy to spot.

Since you love capitalism as you enjoy it's spoils, you should understand how it should be protected.

What if the person who died or was seriously injured,was someone like Albert Einstein then, or a famous scientist whose ideas and discoveries leads to new areas being explored and new opportunities for profit being made??

What if it is a person whose future leadership helped make a country into an economic power??

What if had been Michael Jackson during the earlier part of his career when he was 18?? You do realise how much money was generated by the albums after he was 18??

Even looking at it in pure financial terms(if you can put life down to being just about the money), a serious injury is not comparable to a single song even traded 10000 times. What is that - around £8000 at most?

You could argue the MEDICAL treatment for physical injuries would cost more than that!! What about the psychological scars?? On top of this if they cannot work or have lower productivity, then they are not contributing to the economy too or contributing less, if you want to put human well being only in financial terms which is rather cynical!

Edit!!

The following seems a more appropriate answer in hindsight.



Quark approves.

[abaxas]

What if the person who died or was seriously injured,was someone like Albert Einstein then, or a famous scientist whose ideas and discoveries leads to new areas being explored and new opportunities for profit being made??

What if it is a person whose future leadership helped make a country into an economic power??

What if had been Michael Jackson during the earlier part of his career when he was 18?? You do realise how much money was generated by the albums after he was 18??

Even looking at it in pure financial terms(if you can put life down to being just about the money), a serious injury is not comparable to a single song even traded 10000 times. What is that - around £8000 at most?

You could argue the MEDICAL treatment for physical injuries would cost more than that!! What about the psychological scars?? On top of this if they cannot work or have lower productivity, then they are not contributing to the economy too or contributing less, if you want to put human well being only in financial terms which is rather cynical!

Edit!!

The following seems a more appropriate answer in hindsight.



Quark approves.

The problem is that if you dont think in financial terms your country is destroyed by one that does. If you wish to see a good example of this, look at europe.

The question is, at what point does it not matter, as you can no longer afford the tools to pirate with. Is that really what you want?