Forums | MacLife

I don't think standing in front of the courthouse is punishment enough.  Maybe a place where more people congregate would be better.

Nonsense theatrics.

Force a double repayment of theft, garnished wages if not willfully paid, temporary restraining order, send everyone on their way.

Anonymous Delivers! wrote:

Nonsense theatrics.

Force a double repayment of theft, garnished wages if not willfully paid, temporary restraining order, send everyone on their way.

Really, you think that would be more effective than public humiliation? Seriously, these creeps will likely never live this down. They will be marked as thieves for years, decades even. Your idea could be glossed over in a few months - as most people would never even hear the verdict.

robco wrote:

Yes, they'll be marked as thieves. When that happens, how do you expect them to earn an honest living going forward?

I expect them to fess up, make a public apology to the girl, and move on. As a people, we are the most forgiving bunch on Earth - after the apology. It's really not that hard to rehabilitate your image if you try. Look at all the celebrities and politicians that have done it.

Now, if they fail to see the error of their ways, and insist on being jerks, then hey - there is always jail.

robco wrote:

Ask someone with a conviction on their record how easy it is to find a good job. We are certainly not a forgiving bunch. But I forgot, this is 'murcia. It's more important to see people publicly humiliated or to exact revenge than it is to have justice. The only person(s) they need to apologize too is the victim. They don't owe you or I anything.

Are you interested in rehabilitation, or just punishment.

In this case, these women are being spared prison (a costly investment for everyone) in exchange for public humiliation. I'm not saying we should mandate public humiliation, but in many options, offering the choice makes sense.

I still believe that making people embarrassed about their crimes is a far more effective way to get them to stop than fines or prison. They can get angry at "the man" over the fines or prison, but when they have to hold up a sign stating their crime in public, they can only be angry at themselves.

radarman wrote:

Are you interested in rehabilitation, or just punishment.

In this case, these women are being spared prison (a costly investment for everyone) in exchange for public humiliation. I'm not saying we should mandate public humiliation, but in many options, offering the choice makes sense.

I still believe that making people embarrassed about their crimes is a far more effective way to get them to stop than fines or prison. They can get angry at "the man" over the fines or prison, but when they have to hold up a sign stating their crime in public, they can only be angry at themselves.

Both actually. I wouldn't be opposed to them having to pay punitive damages as well as covering court costs. You're trying to set up a situation where it's either sending them to jail or publicly humiliating them. There are alternatives to both.

We could also look at why they did this in the first place and try to address that. We seem to be bent on punishing people for crimes, but less interested in understanding why they commit a crime in the first place.

robco wrote:

Yes, they'll be marked as thieves. When that happens, how do you expect them to earn an honest living going forward?

ding ding ding!

And so you've branded them as thieves for the rest of their lives and so thieves they shall be.

Anonymous Delivers! wrote:

Nonsense theatrics.

Force a double repayment of theft, garnished wages if not willfully paid, temporary restraining order, send everyone on their way.

Would the extra repayment go to the victim or to the state? The victim didn't do anything to deserve being robbed, but they also didn't do anything to deserve a windfall.

Last edited by mackerm (2009-11-05 6:35 pm)

mackerm wrote:

Anonymous Delivers! wrote:

Nonsense theatrics.

Force a double repayment of theft, garnished wages if not willfully paid, temporary restraining order, send everyone on their way.

Would the extra repayment go to the victim or to the state? The victim didn't do anything to deserve being robbed, but they also didn't do anything to deserve a windfall.

They've been inconvenienced and had to prove the validity of the theft.

Anonymous Delivers! wrote:

Nonsense theatrics.

Force a double repayment of theft, garnished wages if not willfully paid, temporary restraining order, send everyone on their way.

True, but wouldn't it be refreshing to see some kid picked up for having a minuscule amount of pot doing something like this instead of hard time?

Gatchaman wrote:

Anonymous Delivers! wrote:

Nonsense theatrics.

Force a double repayment of theft, garnished wages if not willfully paid, temporary restraining order, send everyone on their way.

True, but wouldn't it be refreshing to see some kid picked up for having a minuscule amount of pot doing something like this instead of hard time?

As long as the sign read:
I was arrested for using a perfectly harmless weed because of stupid drug laws.

resedit wrote:

There's a petition going around California (I signed) to make weed like Alcohol - legal for recreational use if you are over 21.

It would still be federally illegal, but feds need to butt out of state affairs.

And for some reason, the Supreme Court supports the feds.