78 réponses à ce sujet

[Voxr]

Finally. 
 
If it gets those "free hugs" freaks out of society, more power to it.

Right? $5 dollar hugs are where it's at. It's like when I pay for it, I know I'm getting a better quality hug.

[AventuroLegendary]

Right? $5 dollar hugs are where it's at. It's like when I pay for it, I know I'm getting a better quality hug.

 

I know. Those hug communists are trying to ruin our functioning economy.

[Dio Demon]

Google "mens rea"?

...

 

You have too much faith in the legal system.  Innocent people have been charged before.

[In Exile]

...

 

You have too much faith in the legal system.  Innocent people have been charged before.

Sure. But the legal system never purported not to have innocent people charged, and no one can say they have a right not to be charged with an offence where there is reliable and convincing evidence that might lead to a conviction (at least notionally; different jurisdictions likely have different ways of assessing the evidentiary threshold for where criminal charges can be properly brought and then where a person might be forced to stand trial). 

 

At least so far as the criminal justice system is concerned, the question is whether there's a reliable process in place to determine eventual guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (notionally, a term like "reasonable doubt" is used because we know we can never be certain of guilt; we just want to be certain enough that punishment is justifiable). 

[Dio Demon]

Sure. But the legal system never purported not to have innocent people charged, and no one can say they have a right not to be charged with an offence where there is reliable and convincing evidence that might lead to a conviction (at least notionally; different jurisdictions likely have different ways of assessing the evidentiary threshold for where criminal charges can be properly brought and then where a person might be forced to stand trial). 

 

At least so far as the criminal justice system is concerned, the question is whether there's a reliable process in place to determine eventual guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (notionally, a term like "reasonable doubt" is used because we know we can never be certain of guilt; we just want to be certain enough that punishment is justifiable). 

Look up Chamberlain v R. She was convicted of murder because of bias media and crappy police work (though she was later released after her life was destroyed) to say that people will not be charged and convicted because someone accidentally brushed someone else's ass is childish. To think that the legal system only punishes the guilty is foolhardy.

[In Exile]

Look up Chamberlain v R. She was convicted of murder because of bias media and crappy police work (though she was later released after her life was destroyed) to say that people will not be charged and convicted because someone accidentally brushed someone else's ass is childish. To think that the legal system only punishes the guilty is foolhardy.

 

I didn't say it only punishes the guilty. In fact, (I thought) I acknowledged it almost certainly punishes the innocent. But that's OK. Or rather, that's the best we can do if we want to have a criminal justice system at all. The question is whether we have adequate safeguards in place to believe that we will only very rarely punish the innocent, and where it happens, that we can acquit and exonorate them. 

 

I'll look up the case you mention, however. Do you recall the year? Or jurisdiction? 

[Dio Demon]

I didn't say it only punishes the guilty. In fact, (I thought) I acknowledged it almost certainly punishes the innocent. But that's OK. Or rather, that's the best we can do if we want to have a criminal justice system at all. The question is whether we have adequate safeguards in place to believe that we will only very rarely punish the innocent, and where it happens, that we can acquit and exonorate them. 

 

I'll look up the case you mention, however. Do you recall the year? Or jurisdiction? 

1983 Commonwealth (Australia).

 

It's also been nicknamed "Dingo ate my baby" case.

 

There's a fine line between adequate safeguards and going too far. This goes way too far as Sim said before what if he accidentally touched someone's ass? How would you prove that the person intended to do so? You really can't. Mens Rea is extremely difficult to apply in normal circumstances. What happens if it becomes a case like I mentioned above? A media sensation where the public is slowly turned against this person. 

 

Today's legal system is bad enough, especially so with the media willing to sensationalise someone taking a dump on the sidewalk as the holy messiah.

[caradoc2000]

"Go directly to jail and do not pass Go"

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

The only way to combat this if it gets passed.it wont nit in a million years but it is so stupid it might.

is for MEN to accuse random WOMEN and i mean random. go out side and look to your left.

Wast there time on frivilous BS that 5yearold asian girl was sexualy assatlting you when she dropped that icecream on your shoe.

that woman at the Checkout counter RAPED YOU when she gave you your change. then the evil witch told you too " Come again."

[Simfam]

Google "mens rea"?

 

Yeah I did.

 

Won't do sh!t. Psychological analysis of any kind is hard to pull; some psychology students like to diagnose themselves for fun. Apparently a few have dementia.

 

But like I said, stuff to that extreme won't really get passed in any law.

 

It was me being silly.

 

On purpose.

 

But if it does.

 

God help you people.

 

But hey, it's not like every law is recognised by the public. I'm pretty sure I've broken a law a few times that I didn't know existed.

 

Even so, people are people. 99 out of a 100 times you'll say 'sorry' and it'll be done with.

 

Unless you meet that one.

 

So yay for sexual harassment laws, they need to be enforced with generous fines. Nothing says "I better not cup her boobs" like 300$ in the back of your mind. Not sure if the OP was really quoting or just using hyperbole for effect with the whole 'bumping into people' thing. But yeah, that ain't passing and if it did nobody but the fifty very angry tumblr people (who peeps think number 50,000) will actually care and embarrass themselves when proven wrong.

 

But whatever. My snark was warranted, but this conversation needs reasons, examples, evidence etcetera, all the components of a proper argument as well as the full commitment of both parties.

 

So in internet slag.

 

I don't really give af.

[The Invader]

Yeah I did.
 
Won't do sh!t. Psychological analysis of any kind is hard to pull; some psychology students like to diagnose themselves for fun. Apparently a few have dementia.
 
But like I said, stuff to that extreme won't really get passed in any law.
 
It was me being silly.
 
On purpose.
 
But if it does.
 
God help you people.
 
But hey, it's not like every law is recognised by the public. I'm pretty sure I've broken a law a few times that I didn't know existed.
 
Even so, people are people. 99 out of a 100 times you'll say 'sorry' and it'll be done with.
 
Unless you meet that one.
 
So yay for sexual harassment laws, they need to be enforced with generous fines. Nothing says "I better not cup her boobs" like 300$ in the back of your mind. Not sure if the OP was really quoting or just using hyperbole for effect with the whole 'bumping into people' thing. But yeah, that ain't passing and if it did nobody but the fifty very angry tumblr people (who peeps think number 50,000) will actually care and embarrass themselves when proven wrong.
 
But whatever. My snark was warranted, but this conversation needs reasons, examples, evidence etcetera, all the components of a proper argument as well as the full commitment of both parties.
 
So in internet slag.
 
I don't really give af.

God help the anime thread now that Sim is back, just kidding Sim. It's good to see you back on BSN. Seriously, the anime thread was soooooo boring without all your shenanigans.

[Fidite Nemini]

I won't even deign this with disappointment, or any sort of argument. The people who think up this kind of stuff are far beyond any form of reasoning or even shame.

 

At this point all I can do to stay sane is grab the popcorn and enjoy the show (also, never ever travel to that asylum nation, I swear that by now everyone should've realized that the people running the show in the US are, to a t, batshit mental).

[Simfam]

God help the anime thread now that Sim is back, just kidding Sim. It's good to see you back on BSN. Seriously, the anime thread was soooooo boring without all your shenanigans.

 

What's an anime thread without it's terrible poster? xD

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

god Sim you ruin everything.

[breakdown71289]

*bumps into someone on the street by accident* 

 

Me: Sorry, my bad!

 

A.L.I: STOP RIGHT THERE! ARREST THAT MAN!

 

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Well he is Black i mean..... yah know.

[breakdown71289]

Well he is Black i mean..... yah know.

 

/racism.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

god Sim you ruin everything.

 

No, I ruin everything.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

 dont you steal my Thunder.

Well he is Black i mean..... yah know.

Oh you know what they are like. always sitting quietly wateing in wateing areas. 

[In Exile]

Yeah I did.

Won't do sh!t. Psychological analysis of any kind is hard to pull; some psychology students like to diagnose themselves for fun. Apparently a few have dementia.

But like I said, stuff to that extreme won't really get passed in any law.

It was me being silly.

On purpose.

But if it does.

God help you people.

But hey, it's not like every law is recognised by the public. I'm pretty sure I've broken a law a few times that I didn't know existed.

Even so, people are people. 99 out of a 100 times you'll say 'sorry' and it'll be done with.

Unless you meet that one.

So yay for sexual harassment laws, they need to be enforced with generous fines. Nothing says "I better not cup her boobs" like 300$ in the back of your mind. Not sure if the OP was really quoting or just using hyperbole for effect with the whole 'bumping into people' thing. But yeah, that ain't passing and if it did nobody but the fifty very angry tumblr people (who peeps think number 50,000) will actually care and embarrass themselves when proven wrong.

But whatever. My snark was warranted, but this conversation needs reasons, examples, evidence etcetera, all the components of a proper argument as well as the full commitment of both parties.

So in internet slag.

I don't really give af.

I don't know what you read but you don't seem to understand the concept of mens rea. It refers to having to have the intention required to make something a crime. By definition unintentional touching isn't a crime. Your real criticism seems to be that you could be convicted on what amounts to false testimony. That's a different (evidentiary) issue.

[Dio Demon]

I don't know what you read but you don't seem to understand the concept of mens rea. It refers to having to have the intention required to make something a crime. By definition unintentional touching isn't a crime. Your real criticism seems to be that you could be convicted on what amounts to false testimony. That's a different (evidentiary) issue.

...

 

I don't think you read his post... 

 Won't do sh!t. Psychological analysis of any kind is hard to pull;

 

To figure out someone's intention you have to understand their mind or ask them and get an honest answer. American Legal System is all about who has the most convincing set of lawyers and those lawyers will probably make you seem like Lucifer himself if given enough dirt.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

prolem is theae types of people tend to keep trying till eventualy something sticks. it may not be the full thing thats how the yes mmens yes got passed. now i think you need a Lawier involved for every sneeky wee wiggle and god forbid there be any squishy noises.  

i hear Gays need the services of a vicar and a shaman before dureing and after.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

[In Exile]

...

I don't think you read his post...
To figure out someone's intention you have to understand their mind or ask them and get an honest answer. American Legal System is all about who has the most convincing set of lawyers and those lawyers will probably make you seem like Lucifer himself if given enough dirt.

No, it isn't. We make inferences about intention all the time from behaviour. If I see someone peeing on a car I can infer intentions without ever interact. Same if I see a couple figuring. To suggest otherwise is just ignorant of basic human functioning. When a case comes down to inconsistent witness testimony we ask judges or juries to sort out what happened based on their evaluation of testimony.

Typically, "one said the other said" type cases get resolved in acquittals, because of reasonable doubt.

It's just ignorant of how the law works to say it comes down to the skill of a lawyer. A phenomenal lawyer can do a lot with bad facts, but most of what people think litigation involves is just TV fantasy - as realistic a recreation of the Courtroom as DAI is of medieval history.

[Decepticon Leader Sully]