Slashdot Mirror


Irish Judge Orders 13-Year-Old To Surrender Xbox

An anonymous reader writes "In Belfast a High Court judge has ordered a 13 year old to surrender his Xbox to the authorities. The boy was charged with a series of robberies and in the bail application the judge asked the boy what he owned that meant a lot to him. The teenager said it was his Xbox games system. The judge told the youth that the surrender of the Xbox would show him what it was like to have something he really valued taken from him."

445 comments

  1. Excellent! by msobkow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love it when a judge thinks and makes the punishment fit the crime. Having his parents pay a fine would have been pointless. Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Excellent! by cyberstealth1024 · · Score: 1

      Indeed! I've only read the summary and not TFA (hey, this is /.), but I concur with your comment!

    2. Re:Excellent! by Announcer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly! This might actually do something USEFUL: "Teach him a LESSON"! With proper guidance, this also could turn his life around! Kudos to a judge that actually DID use his head!

      --
      Willie...
    3. Re:Excellent! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yup. I wish they'd do that with vandals. Send the sheriff in with a sledgehammer into the convicted vandal's room and give him ten minutes to pulverize everything in sight.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Excellent! by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wish people would get their heads out of their asses and realize that punishment and pain have basically no correlation. It's that mentality which leads to our poor recidivism rate. And a lack of appropriate rehabilitation while the convicts are still in prison.

      Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.

    5. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love it when a judge thinks and makes the punishment fit the crime. Having his parents pay a fine would have been pointless. Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

      Totally agree.

      Hope the parents aren't dumb enough to go and buy this kid another xbox when he starts crying his head off.

    6. Re:Excellent! by LurkerXXX · · Score: 0

      What I don't love... when a judge hands out punishment to someone WHO HAS NOT BEEN TRIED OR CONVICTED YET.

      The judge didn't think about the important part.

    7. Re:Excellent! by theNetImp · · Score: 1

      So you think a punishment should be enacted before found guilty eh? He was forced to give over his xbox as bail, not given any monetary option for bail. Meaning he was punished before he was even found guilty.

    8. Re:Excellent! by Xenx · · Score: 1

      As a kid, the punishment would of definitely hurt. Especially so, if my parents had to shell out for a fine.

    9. Re:Excellent! by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, now the kid has to go out and shoplift another XBox...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    10. Re:Excellent! by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      Except it is not a punishment in that sense. It's bail. You have to post that even without conviction. It's not like they'll keep it.

    11. Re:Excellent! by lucm · · Score: 2

      > I love it when a judge thinks and makes the punishment fit the crime

      I love it even better when people RTFA to see that the xbox was not removed as a punishment but as a condition for the bail, which is different. Punishment is usually for people who are convicted, which occurs at the end of the trial, not at the time of discussing bail conditions.

      Sounds like this judge has a serious bias against the accused.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    12. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a punishment. This is just bail, meaning it must be something valuable to ensure the boy returns for trial. In other words, the boy will get it back once the trial is complete.

      dom

    13. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      News Flash: You're not a behavioral psychologist either, chum, and your answer shows it. Stick with what you know.

      You're talking about Pavlov's-dogs-style behaviorism, the judge isn't. And by the way, behaviorism is out of favor "in general" as a strategy, but that doesn't mean it is discredited.

      So yeah, the judge isn't going to have the boy whipped (strict behaviorist strategy). Discomfort that encourages thinking about context is a different beast altogether, which is what the judge is proposing. This is more like putting your kid in time out and asking them to come back to you when they can explain why you are mad at them.

    14. Re:Excellent! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually he did. He told the child that it would be returned to him when the charges were disposed of.

      The only difference between this and something that would be normal everywhere, is that instead of paying money for bail, or making the parents put up collateral or something for his release pending the case's conclusion, the child had to surrender something he valued to the authorities.

    15. Re:Excellent! by Seumas · · Score: 2

      To the contrary. There's nothing stupider than when a judge tries to be cute and orders someone to, say, wear a sandwich board in public. The correct punishment would be to repay the victims for any theft and damages as well as actual punishment for the crime itself.

    16. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 1

      But this is just, right and proper! Obviously if someone does something bad, we do sometyhing bad to them and they will learn! they just will!

      They won't resent society for doing these things to them, and if they do they are clearly immature and wrong, so they need to be punished even more! Why would you even question the sense of this policy?

      I can see why people think this way. The fact is it's not helpful, but that won't change anything. Prison and other measures are seen as punishment, and people will never be happy with a penal system that is not punitive. it doesn't matter what's most cost effective for society, what has the best outcomes, what stops recidivism, any of that. Human nature says transgressors must be punished.

    17. Re:Excellent! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>Kudos to a judge that actually DID use his head!

      Naturally, this is not in America.

      Ireland rocks. The last time I was there, I watched a horse (pulling a carriage) placidly chewing on the lawn of the Irish White House.

    18. Re:Excellent! by Seumas · · Score: 2

      And it's a stupid condition for bail. The purpose of bail is to ensure that the accused will not flee and will actually show up to court. Since the kid is . . . you know, a kid . . . I'm pretty sure that isn't going to be a concern. Unless he is an orphan and living on the streets.

    19. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What bias against the accused? He's probably not going to get any real sentence against him due to age.

      Continental European law is more about keeping the peace rather than upholding The Law, and as such solutions, not punishment, is what is sought. They no doubt had plenty of evidence to suggest he was guilty, however what is important isn't to make him pay for his crimes through a trial... rather one seeks to change his behavior so he doesn't end up as a career criminal.

    20. Re:Excellent! by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Moronic. If punishment isn't something to be feared, then people have no reason not to commit a crime. If I could steal a car and be "punished" by spending a few months at an all-expense-paid resort, I would do that in a heart-beat. I don't even want the car, I just want the paid vacation.

      Punishment doesn't exist to "fix" transgressors. It exists to discourage more people from transgressing.

    21. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, yes of course. I bet that 13 year old kid was about to flee the country. Holding onto that x-box will certainly make sure he shows back up for trial.

    22. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping in mind that this order isn't part of the kid's legal remedy ...

      Have you ever been arrested as a kid? I was at that age, for "pushing" my incoherently drunk mom, where she fell and marked up her face, and hours later she claimed it was assault. During the police car drive (to a temp relocation home) I was terrified shitless. Losing a games console as form of penalty would have made me laugh in relief (even though I wasn't technically on the "wrong" side; I was taken away for both my protection and the inability of the police to contradict her illusory claims).

      If the kid had been ordered to turn over his Xbox as compensation I think he'd be quite relieved.

    23. Re:Excellent! by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Read the article later. Had to get in a first post while the opportunity arose. At least I didn't post "frist post". *LOL*

      But I stand by my statement -- the judge made a fitting decision. The kid will want his XBox back, so it's a far more fitting bail fee than cash would be.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    24. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its Northern Ireland, not the Irish Republic.

    25. Re:Excellent! by ZeRu · · Score: 2

      Belfast is in Northern Ireland, which is part of UK, not part of Republic of Ireland.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    26. Re:Excellent! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Punishment and pain have no correlation? Are you kidding? What about torture and pain, are you one of those people who think those have no correlation either? I mean, the whole reason people are opposed to torture is because it hurts. If it didn't hurt, people would be waterboarding themselves at raves.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Excellent! by galaad2 · · Score: 2

      please RTFA, this was not a final judgement, it was to determine BAIL amount.

      --
      root@127.0.0.1
    28. Re:Excellent! by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

      would of

      You should be punished for that.

    29. Re:Excellent! by bky1701 · · Score: 2

      Please then, enlighten us as to why countries with punishment-centered 'justice' systems like the US have substantially higher crime and repeat crime than countries with "all-expense-paid resorts". I'm waiting.

    30. Re:Excellent! by LambdaWolf · · Score: 1

      Except it is not a punishment in that sense. It's bail. You have to post that even without conviction. It's not like they'll keep it.

      But then what is the value of showing the defendant "what it was like to have something he really valued taken from him" if the court hasn't even concluded yet that he's guilty of taking anything of value from anyone else?

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    31. Re:Excellent! by mcl630 · · Score: 1

      He didn't say we should *reward* transgressors. And fear of punishment isn't the only reason not to commit crimes.

    32. Re:Excellent! by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. And criminology is still in the dark ages, and we use leeches and blood letting as the main sources of medical treatment today. Dig your head out of your ass, there are competing theories on crime. And many criminal theories rest into two specific schools. Those being:

      Bad parenting+lifestyle+societal factors = criminal action
      and
      Chance+opportunity+risk = criminal action

      I believe that the second is more appropriate. As even in average, society roughly 40% of people will steal if they feel they can get away with it, and 30% will steal no matter what. This is your basic material covered in your crim101 courses.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    33. Re:Excellent! by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean it'll work any better.

      I read a case in criminal law about a judge who sentenced a mail thief to an unorthodox sentence. He thought that his crime was a victimless crime, i mean, what in the mail couldn't be replaced? After all, HE never saw the victims. He was sentenced to (and held to perform on appeal) stand outside the post office on a certain number of times with a sandwichboard that said "I am a mail thief. This is my punishment." He was also to shadow the clerk at the lost letter office, in order to meet and understand the victims of lost mail and how it indeed could hurt someone.

      He didn't learn his lesson, and was caught red-handed a second time. The same judge sentenced him to jail the 2nd time around.

    34. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Bail's purpose is to ensure you return for trial and don't flee the country or go into hiding.

      What bail isn't for is to "show you what it is like to have something you really value taken from you"

      This was a 'lesson' plain and simple for a kid the juge thought was a thief, without bothering to have it proven first.

      What it was not was a preventitive measure to keep a 13 year old kid from skipping the country, or having his parents decide "gee, we were all go into hiding, but... They have his x-box, so I guess we won't"

    35. Re:Excellent! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      It's probably the kids parents' Xbox anyways that they bought for him to use. Nice "lesson".... steal something, and something of your parents' that they allowed you to use gets seized, so they have to buy a new one (the latest Xbox model no less) .....

    36. Re:Excellent! by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind, the kid has been charged, not convicted. I would agree, if found guilty, with your reasoning; until then, you're proving a point that may or may not need to be made.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    37. Re:Excellent! by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Huh, what? You think just because he's a kid he's going to show up?

      What, pray tell, makes you so sure? The parents? Well, they let their kid get into a situation in which he was charged with burglary, what makes you think they'll watch him enough to make sure he goes to court?

    38. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My children, like all children, had a tendancy to run across the parking lot. I decided that this was bad, and I swatted their hands every time they did. I held their hands near parking lots and the street and told them that they'd get swatted if they left go. Each of them learned after 4 swats, and only the younger needed the lesson reapplied once. By your logic, I didn't help anything. By my logic, the kids don't run into the street, ever. This will become a problem if they insist on holding my hand when they're teenagers, but they're 4 and 6, so it's still a good thing.

    39. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, and that's exactly why so many people are in the thrall of religion. They believe that the fear of punishment is required to do good.

      Stay classy.

    40. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its actually well documented to work as prescribed. The problem is, almost the entire US prison system is specifically designed to encourage a high reviticism rate. And to make matters worse, law after law is constantly passed to allow for legal imprisonment for things which only absolute fucking idiots consider a crime. Worse yet, once you're in, the system is then rigged to makes it extremely, extremely, extremely difficult to escape the system as it makes every attempt to punish you for the rest of your life, even though you've served your punishment. Constitutionally, unlike the death penalty, actually is cruel and unusual punishment.

      Basically the legal system in the US is badly broken. The US prison system is completely fucked. The laws are seriously fucked up. And politicians can now be legally bridged and legally protected. The US prison system is both the largest and fastest growing government service. The US has more people locked up than any other industrialized country in the world. And sadly, the vast majority of the people currently in prison don't belong there. And worse, a massive segment of those same people do belong there because for their second offense specifically because the US legal system is so completely fucked it ensures they have no choice but to return.

      The US legal/prison system is a farce, fraud, and a scam. Anyone how supports the current system is absolutely corrupt or completely ignorant.

    41. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 2

      Your post brilliantly emphasises my point.

      You have decided, absent any supporting evidence, that punishment is necessary and right.

      I'm not making the assertion that it's wrong, I'm saying that the best possible outcome for society, whatever that may be, is not even investigated because of this attitude.

    42. Re:Excellent! by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      That's not unexpected. If you already believe that you owe nothing to society, a public humiliation by an authority figure (who you can't touch) will only reinforce that idea. Public debasements only work as a forgiveness ritual, and even then only within your own social group. Which is where they came from in tribal law, since there were no prisons.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    43. Re:Excellent! by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I love it when a judge thinks and makes the punishment fit the crime. Having his parents pay a fine would have been pointless. Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

      Since he's 13, I'm pretty sure he's parents probably bought it for him anyways. Of course, he could be a hard worker and do odd jobs to afford one. But seeing as he's a thief, that probably isn't the case.

      Ya, he could of stolen the Xbox, but I'm thinking he didn't, unless he's breaking into peoples houses, they aren't that easy to steal (reserve the right to be wrong).

      Anyways, he's getting it back once the charges are all taken care of. lol, if i was the judge, i'd make it so he didn't get it back till probation was over, and i'd make it a 2-3 year probation.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    44. Re:Excellent! by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Probably more to do with the fact that those 'resort' prison countries:

      A) Also take care of their non imprisoned citizens -- they have functioning social safety nets.

      B) Don't have America's shitty attitude towards ethnic minorities, or have very homogeneous culture.

      I mean don't get me wrong, America's brutal prison complex is horribly immoral, but if you transplanted it to Scandinavia magically without fucking up their social safety nets, I don't think it would really RAISE crime at all.

    45. Re:Excellent! by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      To be fair to the OP, 'Ireland' refers to the Island, not the country of Eire or Northern Ireland.

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    46. Re:Excellent! by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Citations? (short quote, title, author, page/link?)

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    47. Re:Excellent! by artor3 · · Score: 2

      First, name for me a country with an "all-expense-paid resort". Whoops, there isn't one! Because it doesn't work. Every single society throughout all of human history punishes criminals. To varying extents, yes, but always with a punishment.

      So go ahead, name me a successful society that, in the original words, "is not punitive". I'm waiting.

    48. Re:Excellent! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well I'm not going to go digging through 3 years worth of stored notebooks and textbooks for you. You can go look up these books though:
      Criminology today Canuck ed.
      Sociology and Canadian Society
      Foundations of criminal and civil law in Canada
      Principals of effective policing
      Diversity issues in law enforcement

      And I'd suggest an indepth reading and study of:
      Chicago School, Classical School, Conflict Criminology.

      With additional reading in these areas:
      Conflict theory of social constructs, Strain theory, Rational choice theory, and Routine activity theory.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    49. Re:Excellent! by artor3 · · Score: 2

      I have also decided, absent supporting evidence, that society is better off with a spoken language than without one.

      When you are suggesting we try a system which no society in the entire history of human civilization has attempted, much less succeeded with, then the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence. So please, give us your evidence that society could function with a justice system that, in your own words, "is not punitive".

      Or you could keep being smug that because your idea is fresh and radical, it must be good.

    50. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is the sort of thing that would discourage recidivism: it's essentially lesson teaching. Moral shoe swapping.

      Tossing a marijuana user in jail for 15 years, that's not going to teach him much other than how to make a shiv, fight, and avoid being raped. Not really helpful lessons for rehabilitation.

    51. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punishment exists to do both. You're calling what he said moronic, but that's not at all what he meant. Of course punishment must be feared, but it should also teach a lesson. If you can take your opponent's hyperboles literally and argue against those to prove your point, so can I: "Punish them by letting them spend a few months at an all-expense-paid-resort?! He never said that punishment should be pleasurable. You're clearly completely moronic and lack greatly in basic reading comprehension!"

    52. Re:Excellent! by Danieljury3 · · Score: 1

      Explains looters

    53. Re:Excellent! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      That'll teach the boy to tell the truth to a judge!

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    54. Re:Excellent! by Needlzor · · Score: 1

      "Human nature says transgressors must be punished." Actually that behaviour has been shown to exist among most animals that live in "societies". This isn't human nature at all.

    55. Re:Excellent! by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      It's actually incredibly hard to narrow down how much of a deterrent harsh sentences really are. Look at the G7 countries, you have the US with very harsh sentences and a high crime rate, Western Europe with very lenient sentences and a relatively low crime rate, and Japan with harsh sentences(in Japan, if you receive the death sentence neither you or your family is told when they will execute you, you only get informed the morning of the execution and your family doesn't find out till afterwards. Essentially you wake up every day wondering if it will be the last day you are alive) and a relatively low crime rate........

      Overall it seems that the more an individual feels they have a stake in society the less likely they are to commit a crime. American society can be incredibly ostracizing, especially to those who lack money and/or stable employment....

    56. Re:Excellent! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.

      I know this is a bit anecdotal, but spoiled brats everywhere? We've all seen parents that dote on their kids far too much and refuse to punish them appropriately. The kids grow up to the brats. It's just what happens.

      And pain can be one means of punishment, but it's by no means the only one. The OP was talking about the punishment fitting the crime, which is what's really important. Jail time is rarely a fitting punishment for the crimes that are committed. There are alternatives, such as what this judge did, which make a lot more sense.

    57. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 1

      "When you are suggesting we try a system which no society in the entire history of human civilization has attempted, much less succeeded with, then the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence. So please, give us your evidence that society could function with a justice system that, in your own words, "is not punitive".

      Yeah, I'll do that when you get back to me telling me exactly where I made a suggestion as to what the perfect system is, or that we actually try anything.

      Or you could keep being smug that because your idea is fresh and radical, it must be good."

      What's this idea of mine you talk about? You might want to work on your reading comprehension before running off at the mouth.

      I said that society would never be happy with a non-punitive system regardless of evidence. You're proving nicely that any discussion that even mentions this topic will be shouted down by mouth breathers.

    58. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 2

      And we all know that you scheme works perfectly with all humans, regardless of developmental stage.

      This is exactly my point - people are making judgements based on anecdotes and what they feel is right, not on any hard data as to the best outcomes for society.

    59. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.

      Obviously nobody has evidence about taking away X-boxes vs parental fines. But tell me, what's your alternative to which evidence exists for? Where we lack evidence we have to rely on instinct, and experience.

    60. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 2

      Just because it's also animal nature doesn't mean it's not human nature.

    61. Re:Excellent! by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've got no belief that throwing people in a hole will set them straight. On the other hand, I'd be pretty scared of a prison system that didn't discourage crime. A legal system where you get convicted but the punishment is a raised finger and "Please don't do that again" won't do much good. Yes, perhaps in some cases you can take away the reason for their crimes like making them kick the drug habit, but far from all criminals are junkies. A lot of them steal simply because they can and you can't cure that by giving them free things.

      We did try that with some of the roaming thieves for a while, the result was they acted like legal squatters. They kept stealing from all the neighbors, they trashed their own place and before they left they stole everything that wasn't nailed down. It was like pure consumption, not a care in the world for preserving anything. We just threw them a free party and when they were done they moved on to trash somewhere else. Fines are of course a joke because they have no income and anything they steal won't be used to pay fines.

      Largely the crime itself is risk free, because almost anything that can bring that burglar to harm is illegal unless your life is in immediate danger which is interpreted very strictly. As long as he turns and runs you'd better let him run or else you might end up on charges for injuring him. While he's likely to get a minimal penalty for any injury he causes you while trying to flee. My country is pretty much the direct opposite of Texas, they have all the rights even when in the middle of robbing me blind.

      The "catch-and-release" here in Norway means that we have people who are convicted of 25+ crimes a year (not 25+ trials, we gather them up) and that's just what they're caught for. The overall solve rate is 43% so probably well over 50 crimes a year. I don't know what is working, but the all too lenient system here also isn't working very well. Each of those crimes have victims, but it doesn't seem stopping more people from becoming victims is a priority at all. Why should I risk being assaulted to give you another chance?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    62. Re:Excellent! by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      It's an illusion that parents have full control over their children.
      Children have their own personality and no amount of parenting will let parents shape their kids minds completely.
      Some kids just make mistakes on their own or get in with the wrong crowd.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    63. Re:Excellent! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Rational choice theory and strain theory.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    64. Re:Excellent! by McGuirk · · Score: 1
      Erm, waterboarding doesn't "hurt" in the sense of pain. It's just extremely unpleasant, to put it lightly. That's the caveat behind many people reasoning that it isn't torture.

      Anyway, I'm just being pedantic about:

      If it didn't hurt, people would be waterboarding themselves at raves.

    65. Re:Excellent! by Adayse · · Score: 1

      Having shitty attitudes towards cultural differences is a requirement for homogeneous cultures, just look at Scandinavia for proof of this, tolerance here is window dressing. The problem with the US prison system must surely be that it has had too many people in it. Try punishing violent crime with impotency instead..

    66. Re:Excellent! by artor3 · · Score: 2

      Prison and other measures are seen as punishment, and people will never be happy with a penal system that is not punitive. it doesn't matter what's most cost effective for society, what has the best outcomes, what stops recidivism, any of that. Human nature says transgressors must be punished.

      These are your words. There's a pretty strong implication that you are suggesting a non-punitive system should be considered. Such a system is farcical, and yet you criticize people for dismissing it out of hand.

      Despite what you were told in kindergarten, some ideas really are bad. There aren't enough hours in the day to consider them all. If you have some evidence that a non-punitive system might work and should thus be considered, present it. If not, don't be offended when people laugh off the notion as absurd on the face of it.

    67. Re:Excellent! by artor3 · · Score: 1

      He said punishments shouldn't be punitive. I specifically responded to him, and not the parent post (by hedwards), because of that key difference.

      Hedwards stated (and I agree) that punishment need not be painful. I think most sensible people can agree to that. Nursie said that punishments need not be. That's an entirely different statement all together, and I would hope most people can see the absurdity of it.

    68. Re:Excellent! by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      "realize that punishment and pain have basically no correlation."

      Is that so? Off to the foolish corner you go!

    69. Re:Excellent! by Sabriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chance+opportunity-risk-empathy = criminal action

      Further refinement?

    70. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean Áras an Uachtaráin.

      Reminds me of this American guy I met in the pub who kept insisting that the Euro was the Euro-Dollar and just wouldn't be told :p

    71. Re:Excellent! by c0mpliant · · Score: 3, Informative

      And also to be fair to the OP, he wasn't necesserily saying it in connection with the article. And also to be fair to the OP, Ireland does indeed rock.

      --
      There is no -1 disagree
    72. Re:Excellent! by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Please then, enlighten us as to why countries with punishment-centered 'justice' systems like the US have substantially higher crime and repeat crime than countries with "all-expense-paid resorts". I'm waiting.

      I'm calling BS on this one. I live in Joburg, one of the worst places for violent crime, and here we have no death penalty. The penalty for shooting someone is about the same as that for not paying your taxes: A vacation in a fairly nice prison. Here is your counter-example. Especially now that the world cup is over. Plus if you're getting robbed you're not legally allowed to fight back unless you actually get shot.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    73. Re:Excellent! by simmonsjeffreya · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While you do make a few good points here, I would add one point to this:

      C) Drug use. For example, just in tenth graders, 41% of American students have tried pot, compared to 17% in Europe. Also included in this same study* is the fact that 23% of American students have used illicit drugs other than cannabis (not counting alcohol), while only 6% in Europe have.

      I hate to be the one to bring up drugs, but from what I see on a daily basis, it does play a major role. I'm not saying every drug user is going to become a criminal, but it seems from recent data collected by SAMHSA, the balance of drug abuse is changing in the US. Marijuana and alcohol are decreasing, while other more serious, dangerous drugs are increasing in use. This varies from Europe, where Alcohol and Marijuana, in that order, are the most abused, with much, much lower percentages of the population using more dangerous, serious drugs.

      I attribute this change in the US being due to the availability. Alcohol, as a teenager is actually much harder to come by than say marijuana, or surprisingly prescription pain killers, for example. Teens these days have broad access to marijuana, and seem to always have a friend who can get pain killers or tranquilizers (I do not have a source for this statement, it is based on personal observation.) This leads to them just avoiding the trouble of acquiring alcohol and instead, smoking marijuana, while not really a problem in my eyes, or taking prescription pain killers, which is a much bigger issue. Marijuana isn't truly a gateway drug, many users can go their whole life without moving to something "harder", but things like prescription pain killers, tranquilizers, etc are more likely to create the need to get higher and higher, and are rising in use at an alarming rate.

      I've not known many marijuana users, or alcoholics for that matter who will harm someone to get money to acquire their drugs. Crack, Cocain, Meth, Pain Killers, Tranquilizer, etc users on the other hand, will go to great lengths to get their next high. I've seen many, many friends go down this path, and it's truly sad to see.

      Study Cited: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/21/us/study-finds-teenage-drug-use-higher-in-us-than-in-europe.html
      Older, but still accurate information with the same testing methodology used in both regions.

    74. Re:Excellent! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Absolute BS. Claiming that punishment works requires you to believe that humans are dumber than worms. The reason that most punishments fail to improve behavior is because most of the time the punishment isn't for bad behavior. It is either randomly doled out, given to someone for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or because the person that does the punishing is being inconvenienced.

      The criminal that "resents society for his punishment" isn't resentful because he got punished for something he did. He is resentful because he felt his punishment unjust.

      I watch parents abuse their kids by letting them do the same behavior over and over, and then when putting them in "Time Out" when it starts to really get on their nerves, or annoys them in some other way. The let their kids run wild because it is politically incorrect to punish their children. Then they wonder why their child is a hellion, and mine is so well behaved.

      I can honestly say that EVERY behavior problem I have with my child is either something new that we have never dealt with before, or I can identify my own failings in letting bad behavior slide. But then, maybe my experience isn't a fair comparison since my child isn't dumber than a worm.

    75. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psychologically and sociologically, most human problems are caused because of stress, oppression, and frustration in the current society, caused by an hideously insane political system. "Punishment" only adds to this, and thus does not solve anything. It creates new problems for all, "punished", and "punishers". The most obvious reaction for the people "punished" is to seek the very same "revenge" that the "punishers" sought, and thus recidivate. Even when they don't, they will most often feel very bitter for a very long time.

      "Punishing" is trying to reduce the effects by force, without even thinking of approaching the real causes of the problems involved (what caused the person to act, and what are the caused of these causes and how to solve, or at least limit and avoid them). It is mostly irrational.

      It is one of the greatest taboo of our current society (by this I mean, about the past 12.000 years of civilization). It puts us in front of all our problems, of all our prejudices, all of our taboos, all our ignorances, all our errors, and in front of all our apathy.

    76. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not naturally, this is how American judges used to be. It's only been recently they've started to get super lame.

    77. Re:Excellent! by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because our system does not punish people for committing crimes. It punishes people for being an annoyance to the wrong person, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, having a penis, or not having enough money. This is one of the reasons the "unenforceable laws" are so bad. They whip them out when someone with influence wants to screw over someone without. The person the law is used against isn't being punished for breaking the law. They are being punished for annoying the wrong person.

      It isn't the harsh sentences that are the problem. It is the inconsistent punishment. And a system that is designed to make sure that everyone is always in violation of some law.

    78. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only this, but if the kid was telling the truth to the judge, he was just taught to never do that again.

    79. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called Norway, for one. Norwegian prisons are literally what could only be described as care free living better than fancy hotels. They have murderers and rapists basically living on an island with full visitation which they can only leave on weekends. It was actually in an extra scene on the DVD of Michael Moore's Sicko as an "ideal" version of a prison system. We're not talking minor crimes either, several were multiple murderers and rapists. It's entirely non-punitive.

    80. Re:Excellent! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      Bear in mind, the kid has been charged, not convicted.

      But if you RTFA, you'll see that giving up his Xbox is part of his bail conditions. Over here we tend not to operate bail the way it does in the US (I can't speak for NI, I live in Scotland - but the principle is similar), presumably because of the ease with which a suspect could travel outside the jurisdiction of the police force they were arrested by. So, people tend not to be asked to put up large sums of money for bail, but it is possible to impose certain bail conditions. For example, if you start a fight in a pub and commit assault, your bail conditions may include barring you from that pub (or indeed any pubs at all), or possibly a curfew order.

    81. Re:Excellent! by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      So, the kid will learn something. Don't trust the legal system. The judges abuse their power.

    82. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. If a judge made me hand over my xbox to teach me a lesson after I committed a spate of robberies... I'd go steal another xbox.

    83. Re:Excellent! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Belfast is in Northern Ireland, which is part of UK, not part of Republic of Ireland.

      I've been to both parts. Ireland is Ireland, no matter how they partition it.

      (Belfast is scary as hell, though.)

    84. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to nitpick, but technically it is Northern Ireland, hence actually UK courts, but in all reality, NI has a unique blend of Irish and British.

    85. Re:Excellent! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>I think you mean Ãras an UachtarÃin.

      I looked it up on Google, too, but decided not to go there, Mr. Pedantic.

      >>Reminds me of this American guy I met in the pub who kept insisting that the Euro was the Euro-Dollar and just wouldn't be told :p

      Naturally. Getting a term completely wrong is exactly identical to not using the Gaelic equivalent of words that everyone on here will understand. SlÃinte.

    86. Re:Excellent! by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      With all due respect, I'll call BS on your post - I'm here in Midrand, some 25 kms away from the city centre. The penalty for shooting somone is a great deal worse than not paying your taxes.

      Plus, if I'm getting robbed, its entirely legal to fight back; depending on circumstances (say, someone breaking in at night while I'm in the house with my kid), the courts have accepted that flight is not an option, and I'm allowed to shoot the bugger.

      Sure, they also have clauses in the law for excessive force in self-defence, but thats no different from other countries.

      (Yes, I did actually look it up due to the large number of people who kept saying "its not legal to fight back". see my blog for a surprising fact of crime-rates vs death-penalties)

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    87. Re:Excellent! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      So if he had to fork over a large amount of money, that *wouldn't* be punishing him?

      If you were arrested and bailed, you would (most likely, if you're in the US - not so much in the UK) hand over some money. Do you not value that money?

    88. Re:Excellent! by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think there are sideeffects with the zero tolerance punishment based punitive systems that might be responsible for higher crime rates in the U.S.

      If you punish minor crimes like shoplifting or using drugs with prison sentences, you are effectively training better criminals. In prison there are plenty of people to learn them the fine tricks of e.g. auto theft or such and their doing prison time does not make them good candidates on the regular job market.

      Also, if you can get punished with years of prison sentence for something trivial like pot-smoking, this effectively lowers the bar for more serious crimes.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    89. Re:Excellent! by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If fear of punishment is your only reason not to transgress, you've got some pretty shady morals.

      --

      ---
      "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    90. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The case was heard in Belfast. Northern Ireland - part of the UK, not the republic of Ireland.

    91. Re:Excellent! by GauteL · · Score: 1

      This is pure bullshit. The only ones that believe this is the norm in Norway are far right wingers who has never been to prison.

      Ordinary people are scared of prison regardless of what it's like. Criminals never get stopped by the thought of going to prison regardless of what it's like, although they may turn more ruthless to avoid prison. Ie. when they rob you they always kill you to avoid leaving witnesses.

      Preventing crime by scaring criminals with tough sentencing does not work. It just leaves you with a very expensive prison system. Money that could have been spent on education and social equality measures which WOULD reduce crime.

      Show me a country that has low crime rates due to a harsh penal system?

    92. Re:Excellent! by kermidge · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's all of the above, or some combination - at least from what I've read and the people I've talked with inside and out. I get tired of seeing things couched in terms of either-or, since, so far as I can figure, it often clouds the issue and makes clear analysis more difficult.

      As for the judge, I'd have preferred if he'd offered the lad a method for earning his toy back, perhaps through some community service or some such.

    93. Re:Excellent! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>The case was heard in Belfast. Northern Ireland - part of the UK, not the republic of Ireland.

      Both of which are on what island?

    94. Re:Excellent! by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Just the other day there was a shootout between the cops and some hijackers just across the road from where I work, by a school. Being cornered, I must ask the question, why didn't they surrender? Why did they choose to fight it out (and in the process one policeman and two of the hijackers were killed)? Were they just stupid, or maybe they reckoned they could get away, and even if caught it isn't the end of the world for them? Who knows what goes through a criminal's mind, but the point is your theory doesn't tie in with their behavior. Or that of many over criminals here. Obviously this "worse penalty" isn't a sufficient deterrent. And how about the other day when there was a shootout at a school and a couple of school kids were shot?

      I'll give you that it may be legal to fight back in certain circumstances, but how practical is it to do so?

      This is my main point. We do not have a "punishment based" system here. And it shows. Or do you deny crime is high in Joburg?

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    95. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish people would get their heads out of their asses and realize that punishment and pain have basically no correlation. It's that mentality which leads to our poor recidivism rate. And a lack of appropriate rehabilitation while the convicts are still in prison.

      Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.

      Well, there are two basic philosophical justifications for punishment. One of them is utilitarianism, which seeks to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Under that philosophy, I guess you would only want to take his x-box if it were going to discourage him from stealing things in the future. It may or may not have that effect. It's hard to tell. You definitely have a point there. In theory, under this philosophy, if the fear of punishment actually discourages crime, then we should be logically punishing people who look really guilty and will get a lot of publicity for their convictions, rather than people who are guilty, but who will go unnoticed.

      The other justification comes from Kant, who said that "wrong deeds must be punished." Under this philosophy, it doesn't matter whether or not you discourage crime. Instead, you have a moral obligation to punish wrong deeds. Apparently, God prefers this kind of thing, because all of his eternal damnation rhetoric certainly hasn't put an end to sin.

      Anyway, I suspect most people who are happy the judge took away his x-box are secretly leaning towards the second philosophy, at least in this case. If he is convicted, maybe the judge should sentence him to have to smash his xbox into a million pieces and then sit on the phone for hours with a tech support guy in India trying to convince him that the damage is covered under the warranty since a judge ordered him to do it...

    96. Re:Excellent! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2

      Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

      Taking a way his XBox isn't going to hurt him. The judge should have ordered they cut his ears off or something. Or made him use a PS3.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    97. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would. Part of our social net, is that you are not 100 % screwed just because you were in prison once.

    98. Re:Excellent! by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I love it when a judge thinks and makes the punishment fit the crime. Having his parents pay a fine would have been pointless. Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

      I can understand your sentiment, certainly. On the other hand, this kind of thinking smacks of vindictiveness, not of a wish to teach the offender a lesson.

      And then of course, it is always wise to give some thought to how you teach somebody anything - because what is learned is so often not what you thought you were teaching. For a punishment to teach an offender to change his ways, the offender must first understand and accept that he deserves the punishment; otherwise, what he learns is simply that "society" is unfair and harsh, so he becomes resentful - and in the end, antisocial. Psychopaths are not so much born as made.

    99. Re:Excellent! by Marcika · · Score: 1

      Booom, you just shot your credibility. GP asked for a cite to back up some extremely unlikely statistics, you tell him to read five books and however many it takes to become an expert in those seven fields... Which means you were probably full of excrement when you proclaimed those hypothetical crime statistics.

    100. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a system where you lock up the criminals to separate them from the rest of society, so they can't commit more crimes, not to punish them. The ones that aren't likely to keep committing crimes (ie, "can be saved"), you attempt to rehabilitate and find jobs for, etc. The ones that don't, you lock them up longer.
      No amount of punishment will un-kill people, un-destroy buildings, or un-traumatize victims.
      People will expect that if they commit a crime, they'll get locked up, because it pretty dramatically demonstrates they're the sort of person that commits crimes. There's your deterrent.

      "Free will" isn't really meaningful, philosophically, because either your actions are determined by your previous state and inputs, or they are independent of causality and reality and thus effectively random. Probabilities are just weighted random. A moral system, then, should be about guiding your future actions, because we don't know the future, and because you can't change the past anyway.

      Just because you can't conceive of a system that isn't "punitive" but isn't "sunshine and lolipops" doesn't mean the rest of us have imaginations that are so limited.

    101. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, name for me a country with an "all-expense-paid resort". Whoops, there isn't one! Because it doesn't work. Every single society throughout all of human history punishes criminals. To varying extents, yes, but always with a punishment.

      So go ahead, name me a successful society that, in the original words, "is not punitive". I'm waiting.

      Norway fits the bill pretty damn well.

    102. Re:Excellent! by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      There are three parties involved when justice is served. The criminal, the state, and the victim of the crime. An adequate level of pain must be chosen so that the interests of all three parties are taken care of. Certainly, the criminal's interests lie towards a low level of pain, and the state is essentially neutral. But the victim's interests generally lie with a higher level of pain.

    103. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, name for me a country with an "all-expense-paid resort". Whoops, there isn't one! Because it doesn't work. Every single society throughout all of human history punishes criminals. To varying extents, yes, but always with a punishment.

      So go ahead, name me a successful society that, in the original words, "is not punitive". I'm waiting.

      Norway fits the bill pretty well.

      (Of course, that's not to say it's necessarily the best system for them, but it's certainly a "successful society".)

    104. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 90% of statistics... oh, nevermind.

    105. Re:Excellent! by xaxa · · Score: 1

      >>The case was heard in Belfast. Northern Ireland - part of the UK, not the republic of Ireland.

      Both of which are on what island?

      Would you say India if you mean Pakistan? India can refer to the Indian subcontinent, but in the context of discussing a legal system, it would mean the country.

    106. Re:Excellent! by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Just the other day there was a shootout between the cops and some hijackers just across the road from where I work, by a school. Being cornered, I must ask the question, why didn't they surrender? Why did they choose to fight it out (and in the process one policeman and two of the hijackers were killed)? Were they just stupid, or maybe they reckoned they could get away, and even if caught it isn't the end of the world for them?

      Well, they are criminals by definition - do you expect them to say "fair cop, guv, you caught me, here, bring on the handcuffs"?

      Who knows what goes through a criminal's mind, but the point is your theory doesn't tie in with their behavior.

      Wait, what? How does my 'theory' not tie in with some random criminals behaviour? There is a reason anecdotes are not accepted as data - you might be just looking at an outlier, after all. This is why the entire field of statistics exist - to determine how expected or unexpected an event is.

      Besides, what do you mean "my theory" - lets not get emotionally attached to any arguments now! All I did was look at the relationship between violent crime and capital punishment. No more, no less. I can't help it if forces conclusions that happen to be different to your personal experience.

      In my defence, I also point out that I only looked at the extremes of both ends as far as crime stats goes, and I do point out that a followup is needed to see if this relationship exists in the more moderate portions of the dataset.

      Or that of many over criminals here. Obviously this "worse penalty" isn't a sufficient deterrent.

      I'm not sure if you're agreeing with my premise here - "worse penalty not being a deterrent" is something I agree with if the state in question is on either end of the scale.

      And how about the other day when there was a shootout at a school and a couple of school kids were shot?

      Well, a properly funded study would very conclusively display any relationship between violent crime and the death penalty. The arguments for and against are much too numerous to put down here, and are also very complex and involved. Please, by all means, I'm open to continuing this argument over email, so feel free.

      I'll give you that it may be legal to fight back in certain circumstances, but how practical is it to do so?

      This is my main point. We do not have a "punishment based" system here. And it shows. Or do you deny crime is high in Joburg?

      What does one thing have to do with the other? Crime is higher in another country that *does* have punishment-based systems. Does that mean our system is better? Statistically, there is no correlation between "having capital punishments" and "low crime rate". If you have data that shows that the crime rate goes down as the punishment goes up, I'd love to see it.

      (Tired now, email me to continue this argument without annoying the rest of /.)

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    107. Re:Excellent! by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Ya, he could of stolen the Xbox, but I'm thinking he didn't, unless he's breaking into peoples houses, they aren't that easy to steal (reserve the right to be wrong).

      The 13-year-old boy, who cannot be identified because of his age, was accused of a number of burglaries in the Downpatrick area of Co Down

      So he is accused of breaking into property, which is most likely houses (though it could be shops, offices etc). Though I would guess the Xbox isn't stolen.

    108. Re:Excellent! by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It's irrelevant. The OP mentioned a horse chewing on the white house lawn, a building for a prominent Republic of Ireland person. Northern Ireland is a completely different country, and therefore it may be that horses are not allowed to chew on the lawn of (say) Stormont.

    109. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      Gotta make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

      No, if the punishment is too severe, it may have the opposite effect, since the recipient perceives it as unfair.

      Making sure the person understands and accepts the punishment is much more important than the severity. Humans are not machines that mechanically seek out the actions with the most pleasurable and least painful consequences. A small punishment, properly administered, may be much more efficient than a harsh one.

    110. Re:Excellent! by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      I don't know what is working, but the all too lenient system here also isn't working very well.

      But - your anecdotes aside - it clearly is working quite well. Norway has relatively low crime rates compared to other European countries (and much lower than the US). What other result would count as "working" for you?

      It almost seems like you'd prefer to have higher crime rates, as long as it gave you the chance to show how "tough" you were being on criminals...

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    111. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      Pain? Are you advocating corporeal punishments?

    112. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      Most people are pretty shady when (they think) nobody watches them.

    113. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 2

      Punishments don't need to be physically painful or discomforting. The prospect of having to spend a few years in jail, only seeing your family once a week, losing your job, etc, is quite enough to deter most people from most crimes.

    114. Re:Excellent! by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      The idea that 40% of people would steal if they could get away with it is totally ridiculous, unless you think that 40% of people have an IQ below 70.

      Stealing without getting caught is EASY, so easy a child can do it (and they often do).

    115. Re:Excellent! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      then the onus is on you to provide the supporting evidence

      The burden of proof, I believe, is on whoever states something as a fact (simply because it hasn't been proven either way).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    116. Re:Excellent! by UnresolvedExternal · · Score: 1, Informative

      Err... it is Áras an Uachtaráin...

      I presume the tilde was some funny codepage error, we call the accent a "fadda" which means "long", so you pronounce it aaras an uachtaraain (kinda translates to residence of the hightest leader).

      Irony is though, the president has pretty much no power - it's just a figurehead, political decisions are made by the Teaoseach and the Oireachtas

    117. Re:Excellent! by UnresolvedExternal · · Score: 0

      ...(kinda translates to residence of the hightest leader)....

      err... highest even... my fingers have their own typing logic... and I type test lots...

    118. Re:Excellent! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I think most sensible people can agree to that.

      That depends on your subjective definition of the word "sensible."

      and I would hope most people can see the absurdity of it.

      This is subjective, too.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    119. Re:Excellent! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      And we all know that you scheme works perfectly with all humans, regardless of developmental stage.

      Exactly. That's why we need to allow people to swat others when someone believes that another person is doing something "wrong."

      not on any hard data as to the best outcomes for society.

      What are the "best outcomes for society"? That sounds awfully subjective to me.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    120. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lesson: If someone asks you something, lie.

    121. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      That still doesn't explain why the judge motivated it with showing the kid "what it is like to have something you really value taken from you".

    122. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Laws are not the only reason, or even the primary reason, why people don't commit crimes. If murder were legalised today most people would not start doing it tomorrow. The opposite is also true, in places where the punishment for a crime is extremely harsh (death, amputation, hard labour) people still commit crimes. They tend not to think about the consequences when doing it, especially for things like murder. Most people need to have pretty strong reasons to kill someone else and by that point the consequences are not the biggest factor by a long way.

      You also have to differentiate between types of crime. Lifting something from the shop of a large faceless corporation is quite different from murder, both for the punishment and the relative "wrongness" people attribute it. Poverty is one of the biggest factors in crimes like theft, not least because if you can afford it there is little motivation to risk stealing it. If you can't afford something that does excuse theft, but from societies point of view it is important to deal with the poverty factor to prevent the same thing happening again.

      Punishment is the smallest factor in re-offending and I am glad we can see that now. I don't like being a victim of crime so I support anything that will effectively reduce offending rates.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    123. Re:Excellent! by yomammamia · · Score: 1

      A lesson in empathy is a great deterrent.

    124. Re:Excellent! by NNKK · · Score: 3, Informative

      Bail conditions are pretty routine in the US these days, though rarely very creative (surrender passport, stay away from victim, blah blah blah). A condition like this would definitely raise constitutional questions, though. Pre-trial confinement and bail are supposed to be preventative measures to ensure appearance in court and, in extreme cases, protect society. Taking away the kid's xbox is clearly punitive.

    125. Re:Excellent! by NNKK · · Score: 1

      As an outsider looking in, I'd say the island of Ireland is probably a lot more cohesive, culturally and economically, than the large and incredibly diverse country we call India, much less the whole Indian subcontinent.

    126. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A lot of them steal simply because they can and you can't cure that by giving them free things.

      No-one is saying you can. What they need are realistic prospects of a life. Once you have a conviction for stealing and no qualifications you don't have much chance of getting a job, let alone one where you earn enough to get completely off benefits. Your choice is a lifetime of poverty and benefits or more crime. Guess which one they choose.

      Giving them free stuff is counter productive. Allowing them to earn it isn't.

      As long as he turns and runs you'd better let him run or else you might end up on charges for injuring him.

      It is the police's job to catch and punish criminals. If they are not doing it you need to take that up with them, not become a vigilante. Aside from anything else it would be a very good excuse to smash your head in next time I see you because I thought you were stealing my stuff.

      The law is quite clear in the UK. You are allowed to defend yourself, even to the point of killing the other person. That farmer, I forget his name, who went to prison shot the guy from several meters away at the top of some stairs. No threat to his own well-being, he just decided to be judge, jury and executioner. Doesn't excuse theft of course.

      While he's likely to get a minimal penalty for any injury he causes you while trying to flee.

      Er, no. The crime is the same (assault), the punishment is the same. You might be able to get a lower sentence by claiming aggravating circumstances. The law also allows for longer sentences when violence is used in the process of committing another crime in the UK.

      they have all the rights even when in the middle of robbing me blind.

      If you are talking about human rights then you both have the same ones. That is the point, they are universal. He has no more right to assault you than you do to assault him. Neither of you have the right to take violent revenge.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    127. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all i know is:
      in switzerland you get your own cell, nice bed, closet, tiny bathroom, tv...
      you can go for a walk once a day and if you behave and are not a threat to others, they even allow you to have a pc with internet...
      food is also quite nice too...

      i for example was "fucked" by cops maybe 10 times regarding weed. outcome: had to pay a few hundred bucks(all in all) and that was about it...
      they even took us out when we had a indoor plantation. outcome: a tiny fee(in comparison to....)

      so i would say CH is pretty close to a non punitive country...

    128. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't think it would really RAISE crime at all.

      I don't think it would lower it either, and that was the GP's point. Punishment is important but is not the main deterrent or reason people don't re-offend (unless you kill them of course).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    129. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      I don't think the GP was seriously suggesting a resort, just a much softer punishment than what the typical US prison provides. In the UK we have "open" prisons. No walls or fences, prisoners are tagged but can leave to do voluntary work or even a paid job during the day. They work quite well for reforming low level criminals and have lower re-offending rates than normal prisons. There is some debate as to how much that is due to taking in less hardened criminals, but even when the crime is more serious and the person is only moved there after serving the bulk of their sentence in a normal prison it works.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    130. Re:Excellent! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Why it's been said that opportunity makes the thief? If I could steal large amount of money and get away with it, I would probably do it, knowing it will solve all my financial problems for a while, if not for the rest of my life. Does that make me immoral person? Even if you think so, I could also make another example by mentioning that I don't smoke marijuana only because I don't want to end up in jail for such a trivial "crime". Does that make me immoral person? It's not like I would kill or rape someone just because I want to know how it feels.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    131. Re:Excellent! by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Norway needs to bring back exiling people.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    132. Re:Excellent! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Ireland is Ireland, no matter how they partition it.

      Yes, geographically. But laws are different in Ulster than in Ireland, which I think is more relevant to this article than geography.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    133. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of supporting evidence that language is necessary for civilisation. Your statement is idiotic.

      You are taking the GP too literally. I don't think he is suggesting no punishment, merely that punishment is not the best way to deter crime or to reform criminals. There is plenty of evidence and research to support this.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    134. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where exactly does the severity of the punishment come into this? There's no evidence to suggest that criminals are deterred by threats of greater pain.

      The US and English criminal system IS in the dark ages compared to countries like Sweden which base their criminal system on actual scientific evidence.

    135. Re:Excellent! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>...in the context of discussing a legal system, it would mean the country.

      In the context of discussing "national character" or whatever you want to call it, it's appropriate to refer to the entire island.

    136. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me a country that has low crime rates due to a harsh penal system?

      Singapore

    137. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't "Ireland" - Belfast is in Northern Ireland, not the Republic of Ireland.

      There is no "Irish White House" in Northern Ireland either.

      Getting the two mixed up has historically (i.e. within the last 30 years) got you shot in parts of Northern Ireland.

      Trust me when I say it's not a mistake you want to make when you visit.

    138. Re:Excellent! by hey! · · Score: 1

      If this were sentencing, I'd agree with you, but this is *bail* which is assessed *before* guilt is proven. Bail is not supposed to be punitive, it is security that the suspect will not flee the court's jurisdiction before trial. Attempting to punish someone through bail sends the wrong message: that it is acceptable to break the law if you are in a position to get away with it.

      As a parent, I think the most important thing about punishments is that they be consistent and very strictly just. I don't believe this out of a concern for the civil rights of children, but out of my understanding of what it takes for a punishment to send the *right* lesson. Any loophole will be seized upon to prove that the punishment was chosen to suit some other purpose than justice. That's why I never punish in anger. If I do, I retract the punishment, explain that I'm only human, then impose a more thoughtful punishment.

      The point is that I want my kids to connect the punishment with *their* decisions, not *mine*. I want them to see the punishment as an entirely reasonable and predictable outcome of their actions. That way there's a chance they'll learn right and wrong. I *also* teach them that some rules that are imposed on them from outside *can be* arbitrary. For example, if a teacher wants something that is unreasonable, it's OK to say "no" and take the hit on their grades. That's because when they grow up and are faced by some kind of institutionalized wrong, I want them to act in accordance with their own internal moral compass. This puts me in conflict some times with teachers, who explain they are trying to teach the moral lesson that life requires sacrifices. I reply that while that is an important lesson that I do want my children to learn, I also want them to learn to stand up to people in authority when those people are wrong. Life does require reasonable compromise with the just demands of authority, but when authority overreaches itself the lesson about standing up to it becomes paramount.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    139. Re:Excellent! by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      I won't continue to argue here, just one last thing to say :- I am not saying there is a correlation between having a "punishment based" system and crime rates. What I took exception to was GGGPs implication that a "punishment based" system having a higher crime rate was true. Joburg is legendary for its crime, and by all accounts (unless I have been mislead) prison is (compared to how criminals live) a paid resort. Thus, I am casting doubt on his assertion. That is back on OP's topic and relevant.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    140. Re:Excellent! by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      And criminology is still in the dark ages, and we use leeches and blood letting as the main sources of medical treatment today.

      Don't sell them short. The FDA cleared them for medical use seven years ago...
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5319129/ns/health-health_care/t/fda-approves-leeches-medical-devices/
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/leeches.html
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-07-07-leeches-maggots_x.htm
      http://www.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/videos/leeches-regain-hold-in-medicine

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    141. Re:Excellent! by retroworks · · Score: 1

      The theory behind taking something the boy wants is that other boys who love their XBox will be afraid of likewise losing their Xboxes. The theory behind fining the parents is that other parents will pay attention to what their kids are doing because they may be fined. In neither case is the point of punishment to somehow reform the kid in question, though possibly the parents will pay more attention if they've been closing one eye.

      --
      Gently reply
    142. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which just goes to show that there are (at least) 2 clear problems within you and your life that need to be addressed.

      1. You have no thought for the pain/harm/damage your actions will have on the people you share this world (or even your city/town/village) with.

      2. Your life seems bad enough that you will consciously take something that is not yours, in order to escape it.

      In a sense you are right - it would do more good to put to work in the community than it would to give you a paid holiday... But I don't see what good it would to put you in jail? It doesn't remove your motive for the crime - it probably makes your life worse and increases your desire to escape. And it doesn't give you any appreciation of the damage of your actions - it actively hides you from seeing those effects. All this means is that as you see an opportunity to improve you life via illegal means with minimal risk of being caught or punished, you will do it.

      Jail has a use - as a place for those people who can never be reached, who are no longer trusted with their own freedom for fear that they will do something that can never again be undone. Pinching a car really doesn't qualify in my eyes - pinching a car and driving so recklessly that you hit someone with it certainly does though.

      While solving the problems that cause crime may be almost entirely out of our reach right now - it does us no good to start down the wrong path just because we can't see another yet.

             

    143. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      makes the punishment fit the crime .. make the punishment hurt for it to have any effect.

      Those two things are quite different things. On the other hand, this kid is a minor and should be taken into custody by the officials while keeping the court hearings secret for the next few decades..at least in some other European countries.

    144. Re:Excellent! by shentino · · Score: 1

      Which will put him in contempt of court and forfeit his Xbox.

    145. Re:Excellent! by JBHarris · · Score: 1

      Restorative justice systems are becoming more and more common in American schools, especially charter schools where the ultimate goal is a fully-capable, well-educated adult. http://www.realjustice.org/articles.html?articleId=441 While this isn't necessarily representative of an entire society, I would say that some urban school districts suffer from many of the same conditions that you see in society that result in incarceration. Just my .02. J. Brad Harris

    146. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that the second is more appropriate.

      Of course you would as a likely American (R). The English roll quite similarly in some cases but the ECHR is here to restrain them.

    147. Re:Excellent! by shentino · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps, his parents might skip town and drag the kid with them just to make SURE he loses his x-box for good.

      If I wanted to teach my kid a lesson and I was a sadistic parent that's exactly what I would do.

    148. Re:Excellent! by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I actually think this is because of a culture that encourages addictive behavior.

      For example, we revile pedophilia, but increasingly sexualize younger and younger girls and boys.

      I wish I understood why we did this kind of thing in our culture. Why we fetishize the forbidden. It seems extremely unhealthy to me.

    149. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yah.... needless to say you're completely wrong, positive and negative punishment both work

    150. Re:Excellent! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I've not known many marijuana users, or alcoholics for that matter who will harm someone to get money to acquire their drugs. Crack, Cocain, Meth, Pain Killers, Tranquilizer, etc users on the other hand, will go to great lengths to get their next high. I've seen many, many friends go down this path, and it's truly sad to see.

      If that's their only choice, alcoholics will rob for booze. The difference is that alcohol is cheap enough that you can panhandle enough to get drunk regularly.

      If you want to reduce the harm associated with addiction, you have to make it easy to maintain that addiction. Otherwise they will spend all their effort in getting their fix, hurting other people in the process. Better to just let them hurt themselves in peace, and offer treatment to those who want to change.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    151. Re:Excellent! by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

      As even in average, society roughly 40% of people will steal if they feel they can get away with it

      Come on, our society isn't 40% bankers.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    152. Re:Excellent! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      You can see a picture of the Irish White House here

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    153. Re:Excellent! by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      If you can't afford something that does excuse theft, but from societies point of view it is important to deal with the poverty factor to prevent the same thing happening again.

      I'm going to assume you meant "does not excuse theft".

      I think this is a really tricky line to walk. In highly stratified societies in which raising yourself out of poverty is nearly impossible I don't think it is inexcusable. Though, I also don't think that massive theft (even by governments) will help those societies become more equitable.

      In many countries, if you're a servant, you will ALWAYS be a servant. It doesn't matter what you do or how well you do it. You won't be able to start a side business and make a ton of money. You won't be able to learn a new skillset and raise your class. You won't be able to do any of these things. India has this problem. So do many latin american countries.

      I'm not sure what can be done about it. There is a whole complex of forces that lead to this being the case. But I do not judge thieves in places like this as harshly, even though I don't think they're doing anything to fix the problem.

    154. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. I wish they'd do that with vandals. Send the sheriff in with a sledgehammer into the convicted vandal's room and give him ten minutes to pulverize everything in sight.

      As long as the vandal is inside the room, Im all for it. :)

    155. Re:Excellent! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      As even in average, society roughly 40% of people will steal if they feel they can get away with it, and 30% will steal no matter what.

      Frankly, I don't believe those figures. Please cite the *primary* research that generated them.

    156. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you are just talking bullshit.

      Unless you got some actual evidence to back up your statement

    157. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of the parent's paying a fine, the judge takes the XBox that the parent's bought for the kid! What's the difference?

    158. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this kid has any brains he has a PS3 and he prefers it to his Xbox.

    159. Re:Excellent! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      So, you make a claim and *we* have to prove it? No, no, no, it don't work that way. Prove your claim or it's garbage.

    160. Re:Excellent! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Rational choice theory and strain theory.

      Ooooh, buzzword bingo! Lemme play! Ummmm...OK, chaos theory and game theory. Your turn!

    161. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In highly stratified societies in which raising yourself out of poverty is nearly impossible I don't think it is inexcusable.

      I would agree with that.

      Though, I also don't think that massive theft (even by governments) will help those societies become more equitable.

      I assume you are referring to taxation and more specifically welfare. Ignoring the other implications of that for a moment how would you go about preventing such disparity of wealth as you alluded to above? Tax funded socialism is pretty much the only way.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    162. Re:Excellent! by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      As even in average, society roughly 40% of people will steal if they feel they can get away with it

      Come on, our society isn't 40% bankers.

      40% includes politicians.

    163. Re:Excellent! by ghmh · · Score: 1

      I haven't done crim101.

      Are you implying that 70% of people will steal, or is the 30% a subset of the 40%, or is it a hybrid cross-section where say 50% will steal in a 'get away with it' situation?

    164. Re:Excellent! by horza · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about Ireland? The title says "Irish", and to have Irish nationality you have to live in Republic of Ireland. If you live in Belfast then you are British. Ergo the post title is incorrect.

      Phillip.

    165. Re:Excellent! by Duradin · · Score: 1

      "For example, we revile pedophilia, but increasingly sexualize younger and younger girls and boys."

      For historical reference, Juliet, of Romeo and Juliet, was 13 and getting to be considered an old maid since she wasn't married yet. So if you're wondering why society is sexualizing younger and younger girls and boys it's because society has pushed the concept of childhood to unnatural lengths, basically society vs. biology.

    166. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such lessons are an attempt to instill into a person a guilt-ridden superego, in hopes that this will make him police his own actions better.

      However, showing someone how much suffering they cause only works if the person actually cares how much other people suffer.

      On the flip side, such lessons are also an attempt to show him how much suffering he will endure whenever he gets caught. The self-policing goal is still there but it isn't based on guilt so much as avoidance of unwanted consequences. THIS only works inasmuch as the person believes he might get caught, however.

      Then there is always revenge. Hurting the one who hurt you generally feels good. Not very noble, but a least it's honest.

    167. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ((Chance + opportunity * (reward/risk))/native intelligence ) - empathy = criminal activity

    168. Re:Excellent! by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      Which is a major reason why drugs should be legalized in the US (and probably other countries, but I can't speak for them as I live in the US)
      I'm going to go off on a tangent/mini-rant, here:
      The expense is in large part due to criminal control of the source and the expense involved in hiding the activity. In addition, legal drugs would free up resources in law enforcement and the courts, as well as prison space, for people who actually hurt OTHER people, rather than causing debatable self-inflicted damage. Added tax revenue from the sale of those products could be funneled into recovery programs for those that want to get off drugs. Also, legal drugs means that legitimate businesses would be selling them, thus robbing most criminal organizations of that income, which would hamstring a large part of the gang violence we see here in the US.

      It's a win/win situation that we won't pursue because of the puritanical morality that we have here in the US and insist on keeping even though it runs counter to the supposed ideals of our country (meaning: personal freedom and responsibility).

      I don't hold this position because I want to do drugs (I've got no interest), I'm just tired of all the many various ways in which my country manufactures criminals, and our drug policy is the primary reason why we have such ridiculous criminal statistics (in my opinion). It's insane.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    169. Re:Excellent! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yep, the loss of freedoms can be significant.

      A billionaire might prefer to take temporary nonlethal and nonpermanently impairing pain (e.g. whipping that does not cause major scars or permanent crippling) than be jailed for two years.

      They understand very well the meaning of opportunity cost.

      Everyone has on average 70-80 years, if you spend years in jail it starts to "hurt" even if it's not physically painful.

      And sometimes it's not just about punishment. Say someone just can't control himself and might hurt people when he gets angry, so you put him in prison, don't torture him, let him have access to Internet, books etc, and let him do most stuff he likes - play games, watch movies, eat reasonably decent food. He just doesn't get to go out and be a danger to others. This way he might still be able to contribute to society or at least live a reasonably OK life while others can live their lives without being at risk from him.

      --
    170. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's high! The number I have in my head from freakonomics is 20% if they can get away with it. Things like unmanned supermarkets give me the idea that that's closer to the truth.

    171. Re:Excellent! by Needlzor · · Score: 1

      I wasn't disagreeing at all. As a matter of fact I also happen to think that this kind of animal and barbaric instinct is counterproductive, I just wanted to point that out.

    172. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That's why we need to allow people to swat others when someone believes that another person is doing something "wrong."

      Did you miss my sarcasm or did I miss yours?

      "What are the "best outcomes for society"? That sounds awfully subjective to me."

      Well that's something that should be decided, by society.

      Are we aiming to punish criminals because that feels right, or are we aiming for the lowest possible crime rate?

      These two things are different and should be approached differently. I don't believe that bringing vengeance into the equation helps. Thinking back to your earlier post - a swat on the hand to a kid that's transgressing is not vengefully motivated anyway, so I was probably wrong to criticise you for it.

      I just think that when we're looking at how we treat our criminals, we should take the ideas of punishment and revenge out of the equation. Incarceration is probably still the right tool, and I'm certainly not saying the judge was wrong in this case.

    173. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion..."

      Please point us to your actual evidence that backs up your assertion.

    174. Re:Excellent! by Nursie · · Score: 1

      In which case I apologise!

      I was, I must admit, feeling slightly trollish earlier today.

    175. Re:Excellent! by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure he'll show up in court to get his Xbox back.
      As a parent I would back the judge on this. Take away my kid's wii as bail if you want (rather than asking me to front $500 for bail money). If my kid did something that warrents bail (or was accused of it in convincing enough manor) I'll be the first in line to meter out punishment.
      That said, if my child does show up in court, I expect the Wii (or other bailment) to be returned unmolested, and fully functioning.

      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    176. Re:Excellent! by j-beda · · Score: 1

      As even in average, society roughly 40% of people will steal if they feel they can get away with it, and 30% will steal no matter what. This is your basic material covered in your crim101 courses.

      I have also seen studies showing that most people return a found wallet in a public place, with interesting differences depending on the city and location where the wallet is found, and studies showing levels of cheating on tests is fairly constant regardless of the likelyhood of being caught. Under what conditions are the 30 and 40% present under? Are we talking about a gum drop, a candy bar or a car?

    177. Re:Excellent! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Did you miss my sarcasm or did I miss yours?

      I wasn't really talking to you directly.

      Well that's something that should be decided, by society.

      "Should be," depending on who you ask.

      Are we aiming to punish criminals because that feels right, or are we aiming for the lowest possible crime rate?

      Personally, I'd go for the lowest possible crime rate as long as it offers an extremely low chance of punishing the innocent and there is no other option at the moment.

      a swat on the hand to a kid that's transgressing is not vengefully motivated anyway, so I was probably wrong to criticise you for it.

      I wasn't the one who posted that comment.

      I just think that when we're looking at how we treat our criminals, we should take the ideas of punishment and revenge out of the equation.

      I agree, but I suspect that it would be quite difficult to convince people of this.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    178. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An eye for an eye, then? I thought humanity was past that stage.

    179. Re:Excellent! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Sure does. In law it falls under the common knowledge rational. Whether it's common knowledge to you is irrelevant, to police, lawyers and judges it is.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    180. Re:Excellent! by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Aren't all punishments corporeal? Or are you sending them to hell?

      Maybe you meant corporal.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    181. Re:Excellent! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Gee, better let lawyers, cops, judges, justices, and everyone who works in law know that those are buzz words, rather than the methods on how crime is considered and dealt with. Those are theories that are used today in criminal and civil law. If you don't understand law, and how it fits into the grand scope of criminology, a 1 year crash course is available at most upstanding universities for a small fee of around $10000.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    182. Re:Excellent! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Considering that Norway ranks #13 on the total crimes per capita list at: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita your assessment that they're doing quite well is simply wrong. In fact, they're not significantly different from the US. Norway shows 71 per 1000, vs. 80 per 1000 for America. Let's get the facts right before dismissing the OP.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    183. Re:Excellent! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yep. 70% of the population will steal. Of that 70% it further breaks down into two groups 30% and 40% respectively. The 'get away' I already mentioned, the other is they will regardless even if they get caught. This falls into the shoplifter area, people who steal office supplies all the time, and so on.

      A further point on this is that the 30% that don't steal, act as a moderating factor on the other 70%. But that starts to get into the sociology and psychology of people, and that's something I never got into too much.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    184. Re:Excellent! by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Nah. This is 'common knowledge' in law, law enforcement, the courts, and other legal and various areas of sociology and psychology. Whether you think I need sources is moot, when I've give you the information that I learned a few years ago. This if you've been paying attention is also why you're now seeing a boom in internal white collar private security arrangements with people working for a company and cutting of theft at the source.

      Well at least at any company that cares to recover major losses. I mean hey what's the loss of one persons salary when they've already stolen double that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    185. Re:Excellent! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      they have all the rights even when in the middle of robbing me blind.

      If you are talking about human rights then you both have the same ones. That is the point, they are universal. He has no more right to assault you than you do to assault him. Neither of you have the right to take violent revenge.

      So are you suggesting that if someone comes and attempts to take a possession of your that you have no right to physically prevent them from doing so? If so, please tell us your location...I need some new furniture.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    186. Re:Excellent! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      "If 'everybody knows' such-and-such, then it ain't so, by at least ten thousand to one." Put up your evidence or shut up.

    187. Re:Excellent! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for a mod point. And I'm surprised to find myself in agreement with you for once.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    188. Re:Excellent! by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Not so much. That formula fits for sociopaths, which are about 4% of the population (not all of which are strictly criminals, but practically all of which are at least grade A assholes), but for the rest of criminals out there Chance+opportunity-risk = criminal action is more fitting. Many criminals feel empathy, its just that they rationalize the action as being somehow more important and overriding of consideration for the other person.

    189. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish people would get their heads out of their asses and realize that punishment and pain have basically no correlation**. It's that mentality which leads to our poor recidivism rate. And a lack of appropriate rehabilitation while the convicts are still in prison.

      Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.

      We're still waiting for you to provide evidence of your assertion, hypocrite.

      ** emphasis mine.

    190. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As even in average, society roughly 40% of people will steal if they feel they can get away with it

      Come on, our society isn't 40% bankers.

      It is, however, 40% liberals.

    191. Re:Excellent! by discord5 · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly sure he'll show up in court to get his Xbox back.

      That, or he'll show up in the nearest Gamestop with pocket full of money.

    192. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      I dunno, if it meant he'd never get his Xbox back, I'd think he'd be more willing to show up in court.

    193. Re:Excellent! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's almost like it's emotionally painful or something. Wait a minute.......

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    194. Re:Excellent! by lahvak · · Score: 1

      C) Drug use. For example, just in tenth graders, 41% of American students have tried pot, compared to 17% in Europe. Also included in this same study* is the fact that 23% of American students have used illicit drugs other than cannabis (not counting alcohol), while only 6% in Europe have.

      I somewhat doubt the numbers in this study. I grew up in Europe, and lived in the US the last 18 years. While pretty much all my friends and relatives in Europe have some experience with cannabis, only a very small percentage of my American friends and relatives ever tried it. I know that this is a completely anecdotal evidence, but it makes me question the numbers nevertheless.

      I wonder if they really chose a representative sample of population in Europe. Europe, especially eastern Europe, has much higher degree of ethnic segregation than United States. I would like to know how well were students from ethnic minorities and from areas with extreme poverty represented in their sample.

      Another point: while high crime rate and high drug use usually occur together mostly in impoverished areas, it does not necessarily mean that one of them causes the other. It is more likely, in my opinion, that they are both symptoms of poverty.

      Alcohol, as a teenager is actually much harder to come by than say marijuana

      Well, duh! Teenage alcohol is usually fairly high quality, and pretty expensive, no matter which country you are in. Most high school students (heck, even college students) simply cannot afford that sort of stuff. They usually drink the cheapest rakija or currant wine they can get! :)

      --
      AccountKiller
    195. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.

      Well, I'm pretty sure that punishing the kid's parents for what he did isn't going to have much of an effect on the kid himself, so anything that directly affects the kid has got to be worth a try.

    196. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Someone who refers to prison as an "all-expense-paid resort" has clearly never been.

    197. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      There is a very significant portion of the US prison population that is there for non-violent, victimless crimes. Drug possession, for one. Get all of those out, and you'd probably have the room and the resources to concentrate on the violent criminals.

    198. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      And what's the recidivism rate, and crime rate? Because honestly, that's the only thing that matters. If being non-punitive means that fewer people will commit their first crime, and of those, far fewer will commit a second, I'd be all for it.

    199. Re:Excellent! by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Just the other day there was a shootout between the cops and some hijackers just across the road from where I work, by a school. Being cornered, I must ask the question, why didn't they surrender? Why did they choose to fight it out (and in the process one policeman and two of the hijackers were killed)? Were they just stupid, or maybe they reckoned they could get away, and even if caught it isn't the end of the world for them? Who knows what goes through a criminal's mind, but the point is your theory doesn't tie in with their behavior. Or that of many over criminals here. Obviously this "worse penalty" isn't a sufficient deterrent. And how about the other day when there was a shootout at a school and a couple of school kids were shot?

      This happens ALL THE TIME IN THE US, even with our harsher prison system and sentences. Yet, it doesn't do shit to stop it. Clearly, your example is a bad one, as it's clearly involving people who are not mentally stable at the time.

    200. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Largely the crime itself is risk free, because almost anything that can bring that burglar to harm is illegal unless your life is in immediate danger which is interpreted very strictly. As long as he turns and runs you'd better let him run or else you might end up on charges for injuring him. While he's likely to get a minimal penalty for any injury he causes you while trying to flee. My country is pretty much the direct opposite of Texas [...]

      And that's the way it should be, ne?

      Down here in Germany, there is a court case going on right now that's making some waves in the media. Basically, a group of teenagers burglarized the house of an old guy, and when they ran away, he grabbed his gun, went after them, and shot one in the back. The kid died, and the old guy is facing chargers for homicide now.

      Quite a lot of people are up in arms over this, but I think it's the right thing. If somebody attacks you, of course you have to be able to defend yourself, legally; and of course, if you go too far, then any court should take into account that in the heat of the moment and without legal training, you may well go further than strictly necessary without your actions ceasing to be pure self-defense.

      But there is a line that can't be crossed. You cannot go after someone who's already running away and shoot them in the back, and then say "they had it coming, they stole my stuff". That's vigilance, not self-defense, and we don't do that anymore. The police, the legal system, the courts, even prisons - all that exists for a reason. It is these things that make our societies civilized.

      Don't you agree?

    201. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious.. when did the rules of grammar get extended to put a comma after the leading word of a sentence? Is it so hard to go a single word that one needs to force the reader to pause to take a breath, HAVING JUST BEGUN the sentence?

      I see this all the time with "But, blah blah", and now it seems it's extended all the way to "Unless, ...".

      Really, there's rarely a reason for it. Learn your language. The rules may seem arbitrary, and maybe they are, but a common ruleset fosters clear communication.

    202. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people who steal think they WILL get away with it... except the few in the USA who need healthcare and need to be jailed... or somebody who wants the attention expects to get caught. A certain % will be self defeatist about it; but thats another topic.

      The ones who do stupid things and get caught don't plan on getting caught either. Its not that 30% will steal anyhow; its that they can't think ahead properly. Being unable to think/plan ahead not only raises the odds of being caught but ALSO means that the odds of success AND the consequences are not going to be properly weighed. These mentally limited people are likely a result of their environment with possibly a few genetic biases (such as that impulsive one) they then fall pray to a simplistic version of the chance/risk motive. -- I'm not a big fan of the chance/risk school of thought-- its largely just a layer above the other one; not wrong but off target.

      The other problems with this stuff is the statistics are not reliable; conviction rates and solved case rates are poor... plus the system often promotes gaming the stats by its design. (such as getting arrest numbers up over viable convictions; drug crimes up over solving rapes because the numbers are higher. Its like the profit motive but the currency is the simplistic statistics....and it gets worse when you actually put profit$$ into the system. "performance pay" etc. Interestingly, this real problem falls into the "bad environment" camp as well...)

    203. Re:Excellent! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      You can also say that the life expectancy in Shakespeare's time was far lower than it is now, likely half or less of what it is now.

    204. Re:Excellent! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Crack and heroin are really cheap to get messed up quickly too...

    205. Re:Excellent! by simmonsjeffreya · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't agree with that. Sure, crack is cheap, per hit, but it's effects are so short lived, you want your next fix literally within a minute! And heroin being cheap? No way, that is one of the most expensive drugs on the streets, per fix. I of course base this solely on watching friends who are addicted to both of these. Heroin is very, very expensive, sometimes costing upwards of $300 for ~3 "fix's."

      Then, mix this with the fact that these are both highly, highly addictive, and dangerous, things just don't end well. Conversely, an alcoholic can get drunk all day for $10 or 20. A pothead can smoke all day for $20-40. $300 is a bit higher than both of these figures.

    206. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be emotionally painful either. The absence of positive experiences is enough.

    207. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      Many, many people are also criminals because they have a diminished ability to function in society, for example, in a family or workplace situation. In the cases where it's possible, teaching them the basic skills to deal with everyday situations is much more likely to work than giving out punishments. Violent criminals often belong to this category.

      Punishments are more likely to work with people who take a calculated risk when they commit a crime, like with many economic crimes, but even there, increasing the risk of getting caught is much more likely to work than making the punishment harsher.

    208. Re:Excellent! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1
    209. Re:Excellent! by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind, the kid has been charged, not convicted.

      But if you RTFA, you'll see that giving up his Xbox is part of his bail conditions. Over here we tend not to operate bail the way it does in the US

      Exactly! Bail is not supposed to be a punishment. Rather it is supposed to be a guarantee that you'll show up in court. If you take the kid's Xbox, but leave him with his cash, he can easily buy another Xbox. After all, it is the games, not the console which have the real monetary value. And is this kid really a flight risk? If not, there should be no bail required at all. Generally speaking, juveniles are released into their parents custody pending trial without bail required.

      In any event, praising this as a creative "punishment", when there isn't yet a conviction, seems to me misguided.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    210. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The punishement doesn't need to hurt. I think that you meant that the punishment needs to be effectivne. In fact, I believe that punishment is a medium. You need to say something trough that medium, in that case that stealing is bad because it hurts someone. Taking the boy xbox was an efective way of delivering that message. The hurting is a part of the side effects of being stolen from. The punishment isn't the hurting, it's the taking. But that's me and I could be wrong.

    211. Re:Excellent! by u38cg · · Score: 1
      You never go straight to an open prison. You start off in a cat A, along with the lifers and rapists, and you work your way into open prison.

      That said, prison is a seriously fucked up concept. We don't even have serious scientific evidence that it works. Some people need to be out of reach of the public, but most need their mental illnesses and addictions treated and to get some training in basic life skills.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    212. Re:Excellent! by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Let's turn that argument around: if the face of repeated recidivism, why is it that you maintain prison "works"? Do you have any evidence that prison changes people's behaviour for the better, in aggregate?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    213. Re:Excellent! by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 1

      Don't you agree?

      Nope. The punk decided his life was worth less than a physical object when he chose to break into my house.

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    214. Re:Excellent! by brkello · · Score: 1

      Man, it makes so much since that you are my foe...your whole worldview is skewed and annoying (good thing I am not a cop, according you I would throw you in jail). You have such a whiny, victimized mentality. "Oh, all our laws and freedoms are taken away from us. It is so had to be a man, women get away with murder! And if I do anything to take back my rights from those awful vagina wearing creatures the law comes down on me because I am annoying!" Sad thing is, people like you don't have actually any first hand knowledge, you just read some articles and go to sites like Slashdot where you can circlejerk your point of view of how cops and women are evil. With so many people agreeing, you don't really get a realistic perspective of the world. For every outrageous article you read, there are thousands of instances where the laws are applied correctly and justly. That just doesn't make the news because it isn't interesting. Your lizard brain can't process that so all you ever know is fear.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    215. Re:Excellent! by Snowbat · · Score: 1

      Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan, three of the nine Ulster counties, are in the Republic of Ireland.

      Jurisdictionally, it's Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

    216. Re:Excellent! by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      "Life expectancy" was driven down by infant and childhood mortality. Once you survived your first 10 years back then you were no more likely to die than someone of the same age now. E.g. mortality rates between ages 15-45 were similar to what they are now. "Old age" was probably a bit younger than it is now, but not by much (ten years or so). So lower life expectancy (at birth) was not a good reason to marry at 13 rather than 30.

    217. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are more desperate than others for certain things... Kids are more deprived generally than adults. You have the choice to get that chocolate cake at lunch. Not so much for kids. Half the time the kids aren't even able to purchase that chocolate cake because of nazi-like laws, rules, and other practices. They aren't allowed to work and pretty much have to do whatever those in charge tell them. This is wrong. You give kids the same rights as adults before you start taking away there x-boxes.

    218. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      something that would be normal everywhere

      Not in the UK. When money was put up to secure Assange's release on bail, that was really unusual. It was also only offered as a surety - the cash didn't have to be produced upfront (actually, in that case a small amount of it may have been up-front, but most of it was surety).

      --
      FGD 135
    219. Re:Excellent! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      So, are you saying that handing over cash for bail isn't a punishment?

    220. Re:Excellent! by JarinArenos · · Score: 1

      Chance+opportunity+rationalization-risk = criminal action. Even a weak rationale is better than none. "I deserve this more than they do" "It's a big business, they won't miss a little profit" "I'm not actually hurting anyone" See: Software piracy on that last point. And yes, I'm referencing personal experience.

    221. Re:Excellent! by thriemus · · Score: 1

      So by your logic Papua New Guinea and Indonesia are the same country simple because they are part of the same island?

      Or shall we start calling Canadians Americans because they are on the same Continent?

      --
      - Sig
    222. Re:Excellent! by shermo · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying every drug user is going to become a criminal

      I have some bad news for you...

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    223. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He isn't just referring to bankers, also lawyers, politicians, and that annoying room-mate who always swipes the last beer in your fridge.

    224. Re:Excellent! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That's not much different then anywhere else. This is how a bail bondsman works in the US. You put your house up as collateral with the private bail agency, they bond you out with a surety bond, if you don't show, they collect pay the courts and then take your home to recoup the losses. If they can track you down and produce you to the courts, they get their money back as well as get to keep your home.

      We can tiptoe around the same effect calling it different all day long. But the start and end is generally the same so it's more of a non issue if you ask me.

    225. Re:Excellent! by snowgirl · · Score: 1

      And handing out a $100,000 bail is not "punitive"? Oh, that's right, the person gets the money back afterwards. Just like he'll get the xbox back so long as he appears in court. Bail is surrendering property temporarily to ensure court appearances, just like you said. Sometimes it amounts to a form of punishment, but that's why bails aren't supposed to be unreasonable... forfeiting an xbox is highly unlikely to cross the threshold of unreasonable.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    226. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well written and I do hope (but do not expect) that you and everyone else who feels the same way actually vote accordingly and not for the same people who have --whether they've been in power or slightly on the sideline-- brought us to this point.

      Yes any Norwegian would know which party I'm suggesting and I can already feel the "outrage".

      Why are the voters currently shifting back to the "republican" side of the the Norwegian equivalent of the US dem/rep "dualist" parties (telling how they were the only two parties to vote in favor of the DLD) instead of making a real choice? It's disaster and unlike in the US we actually have an attainable alternative (two if you count the communists as well, anything is better than the "different in name only" middle block).

      Not saying they're anywhere close to perfect but many are left with a feeling that we're running out of time, some people have felt and thought like your post for a decade, some people for two decades, some for three, and this topic isn't even the most repressed in our society --yet again a fact most Norwegians ought to be well aware of.

    227. Re:Excellent! by crdotson · · Score: 1

      Really? You don't think punishment is a deterrent? We should simply explain to rapists that it is impolite to stick their penises into unwilling women? I mean, we certainly can't do "bad things" to them by locking them up. I'm sure that the appropriate application of reason will solve this problem without force or punishment.

      Punishment works as a deterrent for any human capable of understanding cause and effect, and capable of understanding that a certain effect is not desirable to him/her. This isn't everyone, but it encompasses most humans over the age of two. It is also not an absolute bar to action, but it is a deterrent.

    228. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree and you shouldn't either and here's why.

      If one is punished for striking back there is only one lesson to be learned: strike back smarter.

      Do you realize in which direction you are pushing things? And do we really have to go through this again simply because enough idiots are letting their ideals remove any sense of justice for victims? The blood is already on your hands.

      When people start ignoring the justice system it's done for. Is your reaction to pounce harder upon those who have no faith in the justice system to protect them? Not only isn't that anything new but it results in even less faith in justice.

      There's nothing civilized in letting thieves run rampant, even the brutality of natural law (execution) is more civilized.

    229. Re:Excellent! by beckett · · Score: 1

      Nah. This is 'common knowledge' in law, law enforcement, the courts, and other legal and various areas of sociology and psychology. Whether you think I need sources is moot

      argumentum ad populum. You give specific numbers (40%, 30%) but you cannot cite a specific source?

    230. Re:Excellent! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Or shall we start calling Canadians Americans because they are on the same Continent?

      More like calling Quebecois people "Canadians".

    231. Re:Excellent! by martin-boundary · · Score: 0

      Victims often would like to see criminals suffer some level of physical or mental pain as punishment. An optimal justice system must take those wishes into account.

    232. Re:Excellent! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Okay, okay, I was wrong. I am not from UK or Ireland so I don't know all the pedantic details. I obviuosly shouldn't referred to the part of Isle of Ireland which belongs to UK as Ulster.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    233. Re:Excellent! by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I assume you are referring to taxation and more specifically welfare. Ignoring the other implications of that for a moment how would you go about preventing such disparity of wealth as you alluded to above? Tax funded socialism is pretty much the only way.

      I didn't say income disparity, I said 'stratification'. There's a big difference.

      Our society still has some class mobility. I feel that it is slipping away little by little, but it does exist.

      Income will always follow a power law curve. The two signals I look for to determine whether or not a society has a healthy distribution of wealth is not the ends of the power law curve. I look at the slope of the curve. A very steeply sloping curve implying that a winner-takes-all type society is very bad. Secondly is how many people move from one part of the curve to another during the course of their lifetimes.

      Latin American countries typically have both problems. We are headed that way slowly, but aren't there yet.

    234. Re:Excellent! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      You must live on a flight path, as that's one hell of a WHOOSH over your head.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    235. Re:Excellent! by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      Considering that Norway ranks #13 on the total crimes per capita list at: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita [nationmaster.com] your assessment that they're doing quite well is simply wrong.

      No it's not. That's not a list of every country in the world. It's a list of 20 compared and it covers general "crime". Have a look at something like murder rate instead.

      Let's get the facts right before dismissing the OP.

      You've just admitted that the USA does *worse* than Norway. How does that fact in any way support the OP?!

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    236. Re:Excellent! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      No it's not. That's not a list of every country in the world. It's a list of 20 compared and it covers general "crime". Have a look at something like murder rate instead.

      Incorrect. I'm clearly seeing 60 countries listed, which is not every country in the world, but is certainly representative enough to show that Norway is in fact NOT "working quite well". The discussion was about crime, not murder.

      You've just admitted that the USA does *worse* than Norway. How does that fact in any way support the OP?!

      It supports them by disproving your argument that they're doing quite well, when in fact they're nearly as bad as the US.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    237. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      Well, not necessarily. In some cultures the wish for revenge is considered barbaric, and, although understandable, must be quelled. The victim gets redemption by having the crime taken seriously by society (the verdict and prison sentence), not by making the criminal suffer. Imprisonment is viewed mainly as a way for society to protect itself against future crimes and hopefully rehabilitate the criminal. That's been the dominating view here in Sweden since at least the 1970's.

      Many individuals still want revenge, of course, but it's not accepted by society.

    238. Re:Excellent! by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      Like I said, there's three parties which must each be given something substantial from a judicial system.

      1) Punishment and suffering: this is for the victim (or the victim's family etc). It needs to be strong enough so that the people are not tempted to take justice into their own hands.

      2) Imprisonment and separation: This is for the state and society in general. It needs to exist to prevent immediate conflict and continued crimes with minimal disruption to social peace and ordinary life.

      3) Deterrence and rehabilitation: This is for the criminal. It needs to make it possible for a convict to continue to live in society after 1) and 2) have been performed, without repeating the cycle.

      If any of 1),2),3) are ignored, then there are serious consequences. If 3) is weak, then crime rates in society will just get worse. If 2) is weak then society is no longer safe and can't prosper. If 1) is weak, then the social contract between people and the state is broken.

      Thus, there must be a mix of all three, which will vary depending on the culture, but can never be completely one or two sided.

    239. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      As I said, my own country provides a counter-example, since we don't convict people to make them suffer, and still have relatively low crime rates (the USA has unusually high crime rates for a rich, modern country).

      Most victims and their families accept that criminals don't suffer. Having the crime recognised by society is more important. The need for revenge is largely a learned, cultural thing, not something universal.

    240. Re:Excellent! by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      The need for revenge is largely a learned, cultural thing, not something universal.

      I doubt it, but perhaps the Nordic countries are the most forgiving 0.4% of the world population ;-)

    241. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe the need is always there, but it's not that hard to suppress it.

    242. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The question was not about what is happening, it was about how you would propose to fix it without taxation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    243. Re:Excellent! by Geminii · · Score: 1

      True - there are a lot of lawyers as well.

    244. Re:Excellent! by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Taxation never fixes this kind of stratification. It can't. Part of the reason the stratification exists is because the wealthy have all the power. Even if they enact taxes to try to fix the income disparity, the taxes will merely be a sop, and nothing will truly change.

      I'm not sure how to fix it. A whole cultural value system has to change. Typically, what happens is a bloody revolution and new masters replace the old in manner quite reminiscent of 'Animal Farm', but that isn't really a solution.

    245. Re:Excellent! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, bail is something of value taken under the condition you show to face the charges against you. This saying can have a duel meaning because as a juvenile, his parents would have paid the bail and the boy would have remained one step separated from it.

      In other words, the kids parents would have been the ones out of something of value. Perhaps this kid is a repeat offender and the lesson was more to this is what your parents are going through then it was, you deprived these people when you stole from them.

      The article doesn't go into much detail and I am guessing there. But I can logically see the kid getting into trouble repeatedly and the judge wanting to make it real for him as the motivation for the confiscation. If their legal system is anything like in the states, the juvenile system is much more relaxed with the judges having much more leeway then they would with adults. When I was 14-15, I was accused of vandalizing a teachers house based solely on knowing who lived in the house that had been spray painted and TP'd as we drove by it on the bus in the morning. The judge in that case basically put me on house arrest and said I couldn't leave the house except for school unless a parent was with me the entire time. This is before any trial that ever took place and before the prosecutor looked at the charges and decided there was nothing to pin on me.

    246. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Redistribution of wealth via taxation works, as do tax funded services like the National Health Service and state schools. For example education promotes social mobility and improves society generally. It is also fair to pay for education out of taxation because no-one is independently wealthy, they all rely on other people (e.g. employees) to help generate that wealth and in a service based economy that requires education (numeracy, literacy etc.)

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    247. Re:Excellent! by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I have never seen someone who was wildly successful who was the benefactor of a social program. Near as I can tell, almost every single person I've ever met who's gotten deeply involved with government social programs ends up getting stuck.

      As for education funding, while I think that state funded education is a public good. I do not think that a school with more money is better than a school with less. The thing that makes a school good is the focus and commitment of both the parents and the teachers to the school.

      That being said, I am not for the gutting of public education or anything of the sort. I do like school vouchers, but recognize there is a possible problem in which the schools you can afford with just the voucher are all awful. I haven't heard much data from places that have implemented school vouchers showing whether or not this is the case.

      This inclines me to believe that in practice this isn't actually a problem. Because if it were, the blogs of my friends would be screaming with outrage over the study data showing that it was.

    248. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Virtually everyone in the UK has benefited from some kind of social assistance, from being born in an NHS hospital with an NHS midwife to getting free immunisations and so on.

      Stephen Hawking has all his treatment on the NHS, for example. Actually it was quite funny when people were claiming he would never have lived if America had national healthcare... Apparently some people just assumed he was American. Says a lot.

      I went to a good school which was entirely state funded, as are most in the UK. There are good ones and bad ones, but very very few people pay for education. Some of our most successful entrepreneurs like Richard Branson and Alan Sugar both went to state schools.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    249. Re:Excellent! by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I went to a good school which was entirely state funded, as are most in the UK. There are good ones and bad ones, but very very few people pay for education. Some of our most successful entrepreneurs like Richard Branson and Alan Sugar both went to state schools.

      In the US, being in a state school is not strongly correlated (negatively or positively) with success. Going to a private school is somewhat correlated positively with success. But the quality of our state schools has been declining recently, partly because we have been treating schools more and more like prisons.

      As far as national health care is concerned, that's a complex debate. It may work in the UK, and it may especially work for a national celebrity like Stephen Hawking, but I can tell you that it will not work in the US. What it will result in in the US is everybody except the powerful and well connected receiving fairly poor care. At least, in the US, the insured stand a decent chance of receiving fairly good care right now regardless of class.

      The social programs I'm talking about are things like welfare and state disability.

    250. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      What you're describing sounds pretty wrong to me.

    251. Re:Excellent! by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      did i miss the part where they tried to find out WHY a 13 year old commits robberies ??? did he use a game controller to intimidate people ? a kitchen knife ? an actual gun ? who the hell sold him a controller to intimidate people with in the first place ?

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    252. Re:Excellent! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's a shame, but it doesn't have to be that way. Our state schools have been improving for years.

      This is what I can't understand about many American's point of view. Something the government is doing isn't working very well, therefore the government is incapable of making a go of it and private enterprise is the solution. FOr us some things are just better done by the government and if it isn't working it needs to be fixed, not abandoned.

      Hawking wasn't a celebrity when he started receiving treatment, and even when he was he didn't get anything special. Again, I can't understand your assertion that national healthcare is somehow doomed to failure in the US - why couldn't it work? Wouldn't it be better that everyone is covered (with the option of additional insurance like we have here) rather than just letting people with no money suffer? That is pretty much the definition of the poverty trap.

      I was on state disability for a while (incapacity benefit we call it) and it helped me get through a difficult period of about a year until my symptoms were under control and I could get back to work. I would have been screwed without it and without free treatment on the NHS, and now I am doing pretty well for myself. I could even say I have moved up a notch on the social scale, but I'm too much of a socialist. I pay more tax now too but I don't mind.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    253. Re:Excellent! by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      People in the US see free money from the government as a scam, and a way to steal from their neighbors. Our regulatory systems are routinely captured by private enterprise and twisted to serve their purposes. Licensing boards invent rules to exclude people from professions for profit. People see the government as a thing to be manipulated to their own benefit.

      That's why these things don't and won't work for us. The more things the government does, the more ways there are for people to manipulate and scam the system. And when people want to reform it, the reformers get side-tracked, co-opted or silenced (by having the corporate owned media not pay attention to them).

      Personally, I consider relying on a system that's so easily destroyed by a shift in cultural values to be unreliable anyway.

    254. Re:Excellent! by dylan_- · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. I'm clearly seeing 60 countries listed, which is not every country in the world, but is certainly representative enough to show that Norway is in fact NOT "working quite well".

      My mistake. I guess it didn't load properly the first time I looked. However, the site itself says: "DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." So I don't think it supports your contention that Norway isn't working quite well. It does better than Finland, Denmark, the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. That doesn't support the OPs argument that it's Norway's leniency that encourages crime.

      It supports them by disproving your argument that they're doing quite well, when in fact they're nearly as bad as the US.

      It's all relative. I didn't say they were perfect...

      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    255. Re:Excellent! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I care what it sounds like to you. Perhaps you could explain the nature of it better then I might care.

    256. Re:Excellent! by metacell · · Score: 1

      This:

      When I was 14-15, I was accused of vandalizing a teachers house based solely on knowing who lived in the house that had been spray painted and TP'd as we drove by it on the bus in the morning. The judge in that case basically put me on house arrest and said I couldn't leave the house except for school unless a parent was with me the entire time.

      It sounds like the judge based his decision on very flimsy evidence. It doesn't exactly teach kids to trust the system.

  2. Hahaha by sortius_nod · · Score: 0

    Awesome. I like this kind of punishment.

    1. Re:Hahaha by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      Punishment?

      This was a bail condition. The accused has yet to be tried for his crime.

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
  3. harsh, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow, I'm okay with it.

    1. Re:harsh, but... by Osgeld · · Score: 5, Insightful

      harsh? really? johnny jackoff is involved in a series of robberies and you consider taking his fucking video games away harsh

      piss off, my mom would hide the power brick to my sega for weeks at a time for failing to keep my grades up and this stain gets the same treatment for robbery and you fucking find it harsh???

      first it was the pepsi generation, now its the pussy generation ... fucking wonderful

    2. Re:harsh, but... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      harsh? really? johnny jackoff is involved in a series of robberies and you consider taking his fucking video games away harsh

      To be fair, he is only accused of being involved in a series of robberies at this point. The article did not say how this accusation came to light. It could be that he was caught leaving a burglarized home with stolen items in his hands, it could be he was walking down the street, someone ran passed him and dropped an item, he picked it up right about the time the cops came around the corner and busted him.

      and yes, I know people that has happened to. A club some of us were at was raided for employees supposedly dealing drugs out it. When the cops came barging in, everyone and their brother started dumping anything illegal they had on them and kicking it as far away from them as possible while trying to not be noticed. The cops simply associated everything on the ground with whoever was closest and arrested them for it. There was a big write up in the paper about it complete with everyone's names. My friend got hit for possession of paraphernalia used to process a drug and possession of a narcotic.

      He fought the charges and had them all dropped and triggered a problem with the search warrant (it was set for the bar employees not patrons) which a lot of the others used to get the evidence against them tossed out.

    3. Re:harsh, but... by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      That's only one comment. Most other commenters say this punishment was appropriate, so why are you so pissed off??

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    4. Re:harsh, but... by ppattis · · Score: 1

      I would say that just hiding the brick would be much more harsh. With the console being taken away, it is gone, but with just the brick being taken, you have to look at the damn console everyday and know you can't play it....

  4. He probably is a PS3 kid anyway. by Lashat · · Score: 1

    nt

    --
    For every benefit you receive a tax is levied. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
  5. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now toss him in prison for a day, this isn't fucking kindergarten, by 13 you shouldn't be a mindless little twat getting you hand smacked, its time to start playing for reals

    A few more years and this shit would be in there much longer with a permanent stain on his life

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, turning the kids into professional criminals by sending them to jail (which often amounts for bragging rights AND ruins any future chance of the person getting a honest job), sounds like a good idea.

    2. Re:Good by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much what has happened. According to the article, (I know, slashdot RFTA) the kid has to surrender this as a condition of release until the charges against him are disposed of.

      So he was being held in jail or detention anyways. Went in front of a judge and the judge basically said, gimme your X-Box for bail money.

    3. Re:Good by metacell · · Score: 1

      No, according to the fine article, the judge basically said, gimme your XBox as bail to teach you a lesson. Which is somewhat odd, considering that the boy wasn't convicted, and the purpose of bail is not to teach lessons.

    4. Re:Good by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Well, no. You are reading into the article and attempting to associate two separate statements as a cause and effect for each other. The judge said Give the Xbox to the authorities and it will be returned when the charges are disposed of as a means for bail. He then said it would teach him a lesson. He didn't say the Xbox as bail was to teach him a lesson, he said it would teach him a lesson.

      This is little different from setting a bail for 1 million dollars and forcing the kids family to put everything on hock to get him released. well, except that it was something of the kids instead of the family that is put through the hardship.

    5. Re:Good by metacell · · Score: 1

      That's an extremely literal interpretation. Why would the judge bother to point out that losing his XBox "would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him", if it didn't have something to do with the crime he was accused of?

      What reason is there to set the XBox as bail, except to teach the kid a lesson? Did the 13-year-old pose a flight risk? If he did flee, would he be likely to bring his XBox with him?

    6. Re:Good by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The Xbox was set as bail to ensure the kid showed up to face the charges and dispose of them properly. That is the reason why bail is even set at all.

      Having the kid learn a lesson in the process could be one of those simple ancillary things that was pointed out.

      As for the speculation about him fleeing or taking his Xbox with him, you are again trying to read more into it then is known. We do know that bail is there to allow people who are not convicted of a crime, to be released while reassuring they will return to face the charges and dispose of them properly. Otherwise, we would simply release the accused criminals on their own recognizance. For reasons not discussed in this story, the judge decided that asking the kid what he valued the most and setting that as his bail was the way to achieve this contract for his release known as bail and comfortably assume he would be returning to face the charges. Anything outside of that is purely made up by either of us.

      But lets walk outside this known reality for a minute, let's suppose the judge did think this kid was guilty of the thefts and did arrange the Xbox as bail as punishment before he was convicted. Wouldn't the judge expect the kid to just steal another and thereby defeating the punishment? Wouldn't the judge have ordered him not to play anyone else' Xbox games as part of that punishment? I mean that's a pretty flimsy punishment there, Gimme you Xbox, now you will have to play games on the computer or your friends Xboxes.

    7. Re:Good by metacell · · Score: 1

      The Xbox was set as bail to ensure the kid showed up to face the charges and dispose of them properly. That is the reason why bail is even set at all.

      No. This was in the UK. Bail isn't just a valuable or monetary amount set to motivate the accused to come back and face trial, or to hire a bounty hunter. It's a set of conditions for release, and may be used to prevent the accused from fleeing or from committing additional crimes, if the risk is deemed high.

      If the judge bothered to point out that the accused would learn a lesson from the bail conditions, I think we can assume it had something to do with his motivation. It's not a judge's place to dispense general life advice.

    8. Re:Good by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      lol.. Your trying to use to many words to say the same thing I said.

    9. Re:Good by metacell · · Score: 1

      I thought you were under the impression that bail conditions were only to prevent the accused from fleeing. That may be true in the USA, but not in the UK.

  6. American Alternative by dcollins · · Score: 1

    I'm interested and scared to think what the result would have been if this happened in America today and the response had been, "My constitutional right to avoid being a witness against myself in a criminal case".

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    1. Re:American Alternative by bistromath007 · · Score: 1

      When it hit slashdot, half the comments would be "and nothing existent was lost?"

    2. Re:American Alternative by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Judge: "What's something of value to you?"
      Defendant: "I plead the fifth!"
      Judge: "What are you talking about? This is a bail hearing!"
      Defendant: "I refuse to answer!"
      Judge: "Fine. Bail is set at $1000. Next case."

    3. Re:American Alternative by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Depends what state it occurred in. If it was in Texas, they'd execute him.

    4. Re:American Alternative by dcollins · · Score: 1

      You missed the fine point wherein he did answer, and the answer was "the thing I value most are my Constitutional rights".

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    5. Re:American Alternative by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. It'd go like this:

      Judge: "What's something of value to you?"
      Defendant: "Yo' mama"
      Judge: *facepalm* Bail is a grand, take him to lockup..."

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    6. Re:American Alternative by zill · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure insulting the judge counts as contempt of court.

    7. Re:American Alternative by artor3 · · Score: 1

      LOL, you're right, I did miss that. Well played.

    8. Re:American Alternative by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Judge: "What's something of value to you?"
      Defendant: "I plead the fifth!"

      Or alternatively, just take his constitutional rights away from him :)

  7. I wonder. . . by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 1

    . . .how many new X-Boxes he will buy with the money he stole.

    --
    My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
  8. Punished before found guilty? by theNetImp · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight? He was accused of stealing and when asked for bail he had his xbox taken away? While I agree if he was found guilty that would be an excellent punishment, but that should not be the cost of his bail.

    1. Re:Punished before found guilty? by bmo · · Score: 2

      Why not?

      It's reasonable bail if you factor in the cost of the Xbox. It's not like that there aren't any Xboxes that can be bought to replace it. And it's not like it's gone forever, he will get it back if he shows up to court.

      Show me your work in how you figured that this was unreasonable bail.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Punished before found guilty? by theNetImp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      While it may or may not be "unreasonable bail". It still seems to me like he is being punished before he is even found guilty. He should have been told to pay a normal bail like any other person and if he couldn't afford to pay bail then the xbox would have been a reasonable means for him to secure his bail. The Judge out right gave punishment before a trial. Forcing the child who was yet to be found guilty to be punished. It was IMO unreasonable.

    3. Re:Punished before found guilty? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      In your logic, being "arrested" is "punishment" before being found guilty. Do you really think that we should not arrest people, set bail, for people accused of crimes? What kind of liberal utopia do you live in?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Punished before found guilty? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe a liberal* utopia where the punishment follows, rather than precedes, the guilty verdict? But some people are just old fashioned that way I guess. Pre 9/11 mentality. (That being said, if it was done after he was found guilty, a punishment like this seems far more just than having a child serve a sentence or have his parents burdened with a hefty fine. Even better, have the kid meet the people he stole from. Nothing changes perspective like removing the "otherness".)

      *Sadly, maybe that is a liberal utopia. Conservatives and Liberals really should be united on stuff like that.

    5. Re:Punished before found guilty? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Bail is applied to people as monetary value means something to people. Monetary value forced to be paid for by parents (when I was 13 I got a whole $10 weekly allowance) has no intrinsic value to the accused.

      Bail is set on value, the kid gave up something that was valued. While I don't agree with this I don't see this as being any better or worse than any other bail system.

    6. Re:Punished before found guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The judge specifically said that it would teach the child a lesson. The child does not need to be taught a lesson until he's found guilty.

    7. Re:Punished before found guilty? by bmo · · Score: 2

      >He should have been told to pay a normal bail like any other person and if he couldn't afford to pay bail then the xbox would have been a reasonable means for him to secure his bail. The Judge out right gave punishment before a trial. Forcing the child who was yet to be found guilty to be punished. It was IMO unreasonable.

      Bullshit.

      The judge did not punish the boy. Taking your argument and applying it to adults in similar situations means that any bail at all is punishment because the adult is out of money until the charges are disposed of one way or another. The kid has no money, for either bail or to buy a bond. Thus, the xbox.

      Or would you prefer housing the child in a correctional facility at your expense (as a taxpayer) until his hearing? That's what happens to people cannot afford bail.

      Maybe that's what should have happened.

      --
      BMO

    8. Re:Punished before found guilty? by theNetImp · · Score: 1

      No in my logic, a person should be allowed to pay bail by the same means as every one else that walks into a court. If I were to steal a car in the US and was brought before a judge he wouldn't ask me what my most prized possession was. He'd set a monitory bail, if I couldn't pay it I then have the option to put my most prized possession up as collateral with a bail agent, or remain in jail. If the child is found innocent, he loses out on his most prized possession for X amount of time that the trial goes on, when his parents probably could have afforded the nominal bail that would have been set under any other circumstance. The judge is giving the child a punishment by taking his most prize possession before the trial has even started. It's WRONG.

    9. Re:Punished before found guilty? by theNetImp · · Score: 1

      How do you know the child has no money? No where in the article did it say he had no money. No where in the article did it say he was give the option to pay a normal bail. For all you know he could have hundreds of dollars bank (or country of origin equivilent). I know when I was a kid we had some pretty well off kids who stole for the thrill of it. I myself made $15 a week on a paper route in one year I earned over $100, today it'd probably be closer to $250 with inflation.

    10. Re:Punished before found guilty? by mysidia · · Score: 1, Insightful

      . And it's not like it's gone forever, he will get it back if he shows up to court.

      You know what would be 'gone forever'?

      His save game files. And any artistic or other creative work or game progress saved to the console's memory. (He he....<eg>)

    11. Re:Punished before found guilty? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      How do you get that it's punishment before conviction? Is it not then punishment before conviction if someone has to sell their car or other property to post bail?

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    12. Re:Punished before found guilty? by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      How do you get that it's punishment before conviction? Is it not then punishment before conviction if someone has to sell their car or other property to post bail?

      If they specifically *make* you sell your car to post bail then yes... Otherwise bail is merely a monetary incentive for a person not to skip out on court. i.e. the person is punished *IF* they skip out on court.

    13. Re:Punished before found guilty? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think you'll find many people in the US, conservative or liberal, who think that punishment should precede the guilty verdict. The main thing people disagree on is what counts as punishment......does a 'perp walk' count as punishment? What about taking an xbox for bail? What about taking money for bail?

      You will find occasionally people find people like this guy who think punishment is pointless. Of course crime is pointless too, but you will rarely hear someone like him condemning the criminal.....instead they will condemn the system, or something else. Which is why people don't take him seriously, because it's obvious the criminal is the one who did something wrong.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Punished before found guilty? by bmo · · Score: 1

      >How do you know the child has no money?

      Because unless he has part time work, he has no money of his own. Being that he steals, he has too much time on his hands and should earn some.

      Then maybe he would have some respect for what other people have and refrain from stealing, and buy his own stuff.

      It's amazing how people like you want to let this kid off without anything at all. I'm going to queue up "Only A Lad" by Oingo Boingo and dedicate it to you idiots.

      --
      BMO

    15. Re:Punished before found guilty? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Bail is applied to people as monetary value means something to people. Monetary value forced to be paid for by parents (when I was 13 I got a whole $10 weekly allowance) has no intrinsic value to the accused.

      Bail is set on value, the kid gave up something that was valued. While I don't agree with this I don't see this as being any better or worse than any other bail system.

      Agree. In a perfect world you'd peer into your crystal ball or strap the kid into the truth extraction machine and not have to bother with a trial at all. But you can't know if he's guilty or innocent in advance, and while the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea sounds like a beautiful thing it just isn't that black and white in reality. For the justice system to work, some innocent people are going to have to go to trial which can be of itself a pretty steep punishment for an innocent person.

      Nothing is perfect, and a lot of things aren't even close.

    16. Re:Punished before found guilty? by theNetImp · · Score: 1

      > Being that he steals.

      So you've already convicted him. You should be proud of yourself. How do you know he doesn't have part time work?

      I never said I wanted to let him off. I want him to get a fair trial, and be presumed innocent until he's found guilty, unlike you who's ready to throw him under the bus. [sarcasm]We need a lot more people like you. That'd make this place worth living in.[/sarcasm] I hope you get busted for something you didn't do (not that I have assumed him innocent) and then get similar treatment. Then maybe just MAYBE you'd fucking understand what i'm saying.

    17. Re:Punished before found guilty? by bmo · · Score: 1

      >So you've already convicted him.

      Yup. I'm not his judge so I can do that.

      >You should be proud of yourself.

      Yup.

      Have a good life.

      --
      BMO

    18. Re:Punished before found guilty? by PixetaledPikachu · · Score: 1

      Maybe a liberal* utopia where the punishment follows, rather than precedes, the guilty verdict? But some people are just old fashioned that way I guess. Pre 9/11 mentality

      It's not really a punishment, you know. He can always choose not to pay the bail, right?

    19. Re:Punished before found guilty? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Being arrested is a bad thing. We need to make sure the harm done is as small as possible. similarly with posting bail. Seems that this was chosen to make things as hard as possible on the lad.

    20. Re:Punished before found guilty? by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      It isnt punishment, its a deal to avoid being held in jail until trial.

    21. Re:Punished before found guilty? by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      No, it isnt.

      Money means nothing to the kid. He's 13. Money is not an incentive for him to show up to court - getting his Xbox back IS an incentive, and is therefore a suitable bail condition.

      Its actually intelligent thinking on the part of the judge.

    22. Re:Punished before found guilty? by metacell · · Score: 1

      If it's not a punishment, then why did the judge specifically say it was to teach him a "lesson"?

      To me, it sounds like the judge mixed up bail conditions and punishments.

    23. Re:Punished before found guilty? by metacell · · Score: 1

      Bail is set on value, the kid gave up something that was valued. While I don't agree with this I don't see this as being any better or worse than any other bail system.

      Still doesn't explain why the judge specifically said it was to "show him what it was like to have something he really valued taken from him".

    24. Re:Punished before found guilty? by metacell · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is objecting to the bail system. What people are objecting to is the judge using the bail system as a way to punish someone before they're found guilty.

    25. Re:Punished before found guilty? by metacell · · Score: 1

      The judge did not punish the boy. Taking your argument and applying it to adults in similar situations means that any bail at all is punishment because the adult is out of money until the charges are disposed of one way or another.

      If the judge had told an adult, "You'll have to give up your vinyl collection as bail to show you how it is to lose something you really value", then, yes, it would be a form of punishment. It would also be an abuse of the bail system.

    26. Re:Punished before found guilty? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Of course it is. To the victim of an assault it doesn't matter whether the thugs were wearing red bandanas, or blue caps and badges. When an innocent person is taken away and locked up, that's wrong, and they deserve recourse.

      What kind of authoritarian hell hole do you live in? Oh yeah, this one.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    27. Re:Punished before found guilty? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Which is why people don't take him seriously, because it's obvious the criminal is the one who did something wrong.

      The important question isn't who did what wrong, it's how we can best make everything better. If you can show experimentally that punishment reduces crime, then it's a great idea. If not, then we should consider other options.

      Considering that the US has more people in it's prisons than any other country on earth, and more violent crime than any other first world country, I'd have to say that the punishment thing isn't really working out. Our justice system is nothing but security theatre.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    28. Re:Punished before found guilty? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Crime of all types has dropped since the 'hard on crime' movement in the 80s started. Maybe you should look at your correlation and consider that maybe the US has more people in prison BECAUSE it has more violent crime, and not the other way around.

      Simplistic observations like the one you just made can lead to silly conclusions. For example, someone might observe the fact that violent crime in the US dropped consistently until the 1960s, and conclude that hippies cause violent crime. But that would be silly.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:Punished before found guilty? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      OK, so why does the US have more violent crime than other first world countries? What is it about being born in the US that makes people more likely to be criminal?

      Whatever that factor is, can you blame individuals for it? Will punishing individuals change that factor? Wouldn't it be more effective to examine our society and figure out what that is and change it?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    30. Re:Punished before found guilty? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      Is it not then punishment before conviction if someone has to sell their car or other property to post bail?

      Punishment? no, just utterly and jaw-droppingly outrageous on a scale I would never expect to see outside some third-world hell hole - talk about being 'subjects' rather than citizens.

      But anyway, this is the UK, being asked to post cash up-front for bail is virtually unheard of.

      --
      FGD 135
    31. Re:Punished before found guilty? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      OK, so why does the US have more violent crime than other first world countries? What is it about being born in the US that makes people more likely to be criminal?

      Based on my theory above, it's because we had more hippies. :) I don't know, it's a good question. Probably no one knows the answer for sure, they just have good ideas. Culture likely has something to do with it: in some places it is more acceptable culturally to punch someone in the face when you are mad at them. Gun laws may have something to do with it. I don't think there's any evidence that longer jail terms causes more crime. If you can find it, that would be interesting to see. Just remember not to fall into the 'correlation is causation' trap, etc.

      Whatever that factor is, can you blame individuals for it?

      Yes, because they had the choice. It's not like the culture god struck them and said, "you must go commit crime." Very likely they knew it was wrong when they did it.

      Will punishing individuals change that factor?

      Sometimes it does; based on recidivism, very often it doesn't. At the very least, it keeps them off the streets, and keeps them from doing it again.

      Wouldn't it be more effective to examine our society and figure out what that is and change it?

      It might, or it might not. This is something you can't really answer without answering your first question, and I don't have a good answer for that. What we DO know is that 'being tough on crime' does seem to have an effect, that is, since the 80s, crime rates have dropped.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Punished before found guilty? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is objecting to the bail system. What people are objecting to is the judge using the bail system as a way to punish someone before they're found guilty.

      You don't seem to understand how a bail system works. The idea is to take something of value to ensure the person turns up to court without having to remain in lockup. This is not punishment, it is insurance. The kid will get his xbox back for fucks sake regardless if he is found innocent or guilty, providing he shows up in court.

      Please read my post again then repeat after me 10 times, BAIL IS NOT PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME.

    33. Re:Punished before found guilty? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Judge says stupid things. That wouldn't be a first now would it? The judge could say all he wants providing it doesn't influence the outcome of a case. Since this wasn't a trial yet he can't influence anything and can say what he wants.

      The reality is there's nothing the judge can do to impose punishment at this point. The kid got his xbox taken from him, he'll get it back when he comes to court.

      Though I get what you're saying and one would hope the same judge isn't the one at the trial.

    34. Re:Punished before found guilty? by metacell · · Score: 1

      Read the article before you start yelling at people for not understanding.

      The point isn't that an XBox is being used as bail. The point is that the judge sets the bail to teach the accused a lesson:

      The judge told the youth it would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him.

      As you say, bail SHOULD be used to ensure someone turns up in court. Here, it is ACTUALLY being used by the judge to punish someone.

    35. Re:Punished before found guilty? by metacell · · Score: 1

      Judges are required to follow procedure even before the actual trial, for example, when setting bail. Even if the kid gets his XBox back in a year or so, it's worrying when a judge confuses his personal feelings and personal sense of justice with the application of law.

  9. do unto others.... by tloh · · Score: 2

    It amuses me what this judge would have ordered for the following if such should ever appear before him.

    Kenneth Lay
    Lindsey Lohan
    Lori Drew
    The intruder who victimized the "hide your kids, hide your wife" guy.

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
    1. Re:do unto others.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The intruder who victimized the "hide your kids, hide your wife" guy.

      He probably would've ordered a merciless marathon auto-tuning session with the Gregory Brothers.

    2. Re:do unto others.... by LoganDzwon · · Score: 1

      The "hide your kids, hide your wife" guy was black. No one is looking or cares about apprehending the perpetrator.

    3. Re:do unto others.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It amuses me what this judge would have ordered for the following if such should ever appear before him.

      Kenneth Lay
      Lindsey Lohan
      Lori Drew
      The intruder who victimized the "hide your kids, hide your wife" guy.

      Are any of them 13 years old?

      It depresses me that you're that clueless.

    4. Re:do unto others.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very Interesting! I've done criminal law from getting people out on bail through non-capital murder, and appeals, and I think the judge reqjuiring the kid to put up his XBox showed a lot more brains and thought than are usually evident in the process.
      This, of course, is bail, not the final disposition of the kid's case and punishment.

      The various trial and appellate level judges who have dealt with Lindsay Lohan have left everyone with the very real and rassonable suspicion that the legal system doesn't work, and certainly doesn't work if you have money. In short, they have brought the courts and legal system into disrepute and contempt.

      As for the horrifying Lori Drew case, the unfortunate fact was that there was no law in the relevant jurisdiction against her vicious and lethal conduct at the time she committed it, and the creative attempt to get her on a federal computer crime was understandable but most experts considered it legally doomed, apart from the troubling fact that she had no signficant contgacts, ties, or relations with, and had neither knowingly nor intentionally done anything in, the distant state and district, onlyh fortuitously involved, where the federal authorities had to have that case, when all the witnesses and evidence about the wrongdoing were back in her home county halfway across the country. The state passed a law after this but it could not apply to something already done before it was passed and effective. Psychological child abuse, and encouraging suicide, are both crimes here in Texas, and I know of instances of both, but between extreme interpretations of the First Amendment's free speech clause, lack of understanding of the seriousness of psychological child abuse and the dynamics of suicide, on both of which I happen to have expertise, not all of which I got in a classroom, I have never been able to get, nor have I ever found any record of, any such cases prosecuted much less anyone convicted for such awful and detestable crimes against children. We just had a nine year old boy kill himself here in Texas and some information suggests bullying, a form of psychological child abuse, was a cause.

  10. send him to one of jail boot camps by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    send him to one of jail boot camps that can trun some kids around.

    1. Re:send him to one of jail boot camps by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      The rule of thumb is:

      correctional facilities aren't

      For low level crimes the better response is not to put the person in an environment surrounded by others who are worse. He may learn something, but not necessarily what the system hopes.

  11. Accused but not yet convicted by Dwedit · · Score: 1

    So we are supposed to cheer from seizing property from someone who has been accused but not yet convicted?

    If this happened in America, would the 14th Amendment stop this?

    1. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uhmm if you READ, this was the boy's BAIL HEARING. So this was not at all simply 'siezing property', it was determining what of value the potential offender had that could be used to ensure he would make his trial.

      Honestly this seems to me like a pretty well thought out decision on the judge's part. Most kids don't have a lot of financial assets that could be held for bail, but many have some posession that would be treated as such. Asking the KID what it was seems like it could backfire though...

    2. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It seems to be used in place of money for bail. The kid is free to stay in jail (or wherever they are keeping him), so it's not seizing of property any more than other bail is.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by bmo · · Score: 5, Informative

      ITT: everyone on slashdot but a few misunderstands what bail is.

      It's a guarantee of showing up to court. He gets his xbox back if he shows up to court. If he doesn't, it becomes property of the government. Explain how this is unreasonable.

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by c0lo · · Score: 3, Informative

      So we are supposed to cheer from seizing property from someone who has been accused but not yet convicted?

      TFA:

      and applied to be released on bail...
      [...]
      The judge then ordered him to give the XBOX to the authorities, saying it would be returned to him when the charges were disposed of.

      Not a seizure, but a bail. As the kid wouldn't have had enough money, punishing the parents to pay the bail would be worse. Putting the kid in jail for not paying the bail... even worse.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Exactly, because I'm sure a thirteen year old is likely to run away from his family and go start a new life in whatever their version of "south of the border" is, to avoid a hearing.

    6. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by theNetImp · · Score: 0

      How do you know the kid wouldn't have had enough money. Bail for a first time offender here is $25US (well last time I had to pay it). Any kid with a paper route could get that.

    7. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by c0lo · · Score: 1

      You forget that the kid is Irish.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    8. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, when you're accused of a crime which you didn't commit, you would find it reasonable for the Judge to seize your car and your home's electric meter as a guarantee that you'd show up for court?

    9. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by zill · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that each year there are between 1.3 and 1.5 million teenage runaways in the US?

      I'd say a thirteen year old is much more likely to skip bail than an adult because he's has no job, no outstanding financial obligations, and next to no material possessions.

       

    10. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that each year there are between 1.3 and 1.5 million teenage runaways in the US?

      ... in which case such "bail" would be useless. Or do you really think runaway kids would take all their computing and gaming gear with them?

    11. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      For a minor, it's not the child's financial assets that become an issue; it's his parents/guardians' assets.

      That said, this isn't a forcible seizure, either; the 'bail' could go 'unpaid' (the system isn't turned over) and the kid goes to the lockup...however undesirable, there is an element of choice there for him/his parents or guardians/counsel to make.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    12. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      Some creative maneuvering, and a series of tube slides is actually not a bad hiding spot. You just have to go barefoot (socks slide too much, and shoes make too much noise).

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    13. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      It's more the manner in which the bail was presented; the manner in which the judge decided what the bail should be tends to a presumption of guilt (the judge is ordering surrender of an item valued by the child in lieu of being put in jail); it's a little too 'eye-for-an-eye' for the bail hearing portion of the case. Monetary bail, to a degree, is different; money (while valuable) isn't necessarily an 'item', despite its physical form, and that standard for bail is consistent for any manner of criminal dispute (theft, assault, murder, extortion, and so on).

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    14. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      ITT: everyone on slashdot but a few misunderstands what bail is.

      It's a guarantee of showing up to court. He gets his xbox back if he shows up to court. If he doesn't, it becomes property of the government. Explain how this is unreasonable.

      --
      BMO

      What are the odds that a 13 year old is going to skip out on a trial? What's he going to do , run to Scotland and start a new life? Do you suppose he is going to become a 13 year old fugitive from the law over some theft charges?

      Like you said, the purpose of bail is to ensure someone shows up to court. It is highly suspicious when a judge says "what do you like" and then take it away before a trial has even been conducted. Was he trying to ensure the kid shows up to court, or was he trying to "teach the kid a lesson" before a trial even started?

      Even IF the trial had been conducted there is still a problem with this. Do you really want to let judges make up their own punishments instead of sticking to predefined guidelines? There is a reason we have the 8th amendment in the US, which prevents not only cruel punishments but unusual ones as well.

    15. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      A paper route? Whats that?

    16. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      He is 13yo. Having a paper route may well fall under illegal child labour. At such an age children shouldn't have to, let alone be expected to, take up paid jobs to begin with.

    17. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      It's not that they misunderstand what bail is. I think the article is lacking in details.

      This was in Ireland, correct?

      I'd want to know if the teenager had the option of paying a reasonable monetary bail.

      One final note. To make the teenager know what it is like to have something of value taken from him? What if he is innocent? I really hope the article was poorly written.

    18. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      whatever their version of "south of the border" is

      Gee, I wonder what could be the equivalent of "south of the border" in Northern Ireland. Hint: clue's in the name! :-)

    19. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Actually specifically allowed in the UK, with strict limits on working hours both duration and time of day.

    20. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by metacell · · Score: 1

      Honestly this seems to me like a pretty well thought out decision on the judge's part. Most kids don't have a lot of financial assets that could be held for bail, but many have some posession that would be treated as such. Asking the KID what it was seems like it could backfire though...

      It doesn't sound very well thought-out, considering the judge motivated his decision with showing the kid "what it was like to have something he valued taken from him". The judge seems to be confusing bails with punishments.

    21. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by metacell · · Score: 1

      No, according to the fine article, it's in place of teaching the kid "what it was like to have something he valued taken from him". It sounds like the judge is confusing bails with punishments.

    22. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by metacell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ITT: everyone on slashdot but a few misunderstands what bail is.

      It's a guarantee of showing up to court. He gets his xbox back if he shows up to court. If he doesn't, it becomes property of the government. Explain how this is unreasonable.

      *sigh* No, people here are not misunderstanding what bail is. They're misunderstanding what the issue is. From the fine article:

      The judge told the youth it would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him.

      That's clearly using bail as a form of punishment, not as a way to ensure the person returns to face trial. It's a misuse of the bail system.

    23. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we are supposed to cheer from seizing property from someone who has been accused but not yet convicted?

      If this happened in America, would the 14th Amendment stop this?

      READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE!!!!

    24. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the bail was something like 150 bucks then. or 40 bucks, if it was a stolen xbox.

    25. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a guarantee of showing up to court. He gets his xbox back if he shows up to court. If he doesn't, it becomes property of the government. Explain how this is unreasonable.

      It's unreasonable because, as you said, bail is just to guarantee that he shows up. Yet the judge's comment ("The judge told the youth it would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him.") implies that this is being used as punishment, instead. That seems like a circumventing due process.

    26. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by shentino · · Score: 1

      Not to mention such commentary could potentially taint the proceedings later.

      If any member of the jury got wind of this I would call for an immediate mistrial.

    27. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The xbox itself has physical value, but how do you value the enjoyment spent playing the games? With a monetary bail, I suppose you take away the ability to use the money, but does it directly compare with taking away the ability to use your xbox to play some games while you wait for the trial? Ultimately, the bail is used to provide an incentive to return to the courtroom for the trial. Is it better to withhold $$ or withhold a source of leisure?

    28. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      ITT: everyone on slashdot but a few misunderstands what bail is.

      It's a guarantee of showing up to court. He gets his xbox back if he shows up to court. If he doesn't, it becomes property of the government. Explain how this is unreasonable.

      *sigh* No, people here are not misunderstanding what bail is. They're misunderstanding what the issue is. From the fine article:

      The judge told the youth it would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him.

      That's clearly using bail as a form of punishment, not as a way to ensure the person returns to face trial. It's a misuse of the bail system.

      Exactly! Is this kid a flight risk? Not likely. And if he is, will a $200 Xbox prevent him from fleeing? Not likely. This is a punishment, pure and simple, and the judge has no business punishing someone before a conviction.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    29. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by brkello · · Score: 1

      People on here don't have time to understand. They apply their ideology and figure out how they should be offended about it (in this case "omg, big govment is taking his stuff when he isn't convicted!"). Part of the reason why it is almost impossible to read the comments in here if not for a few gems of intelligent discussion that are able to think for themselves rather than let their ideology tell them what to do.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    30. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by brkello · · Score: 1

      Depends on the severity of the crime you are being accused of and your likelihood to flee.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    31. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      the 8th prevents "(cruel .and. unusual) punishments", not "(cruel punishments) .and. (unsual punishments)"

      --
      FGD 135
    32. Re:Accused but not yet convicted by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      Well, considering both the terms "cruel" and "unusual" are both not very well defined, debating the nature of the conjunction is a bit pointless. However, I will point out for the sake of argument:

      Any time a right or law is ambiguous, it should be interpreted in full restriction of the government and full freedom of the individual. The government may always make the law more clear, but the citizen has to worry about selective enforcement. Thus choosing between the 2 above choices, the second is preferred.

      From my limited reading it seems the courts have tended to favor the idea that the 8th amendment restricts the union of cruel and unusual punishments, often overturning common punishments just because they are considerred cruel.

  12. hmmm by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Well, what's he going to do while he's out on bail without his Xbox? Let me run it through a high tech AI simulator.....okay, the most likely candidates are:
    1. nothing
    2. steal an Xbox
    and for some reason a distant third...
    3. look for leprochauns

    1. Re:hmmm by Arancaytar · · Score: 1, Funny

      leprochauns

      *BZZZ*

      "And the question is: What do you call leprechauns with leprosy?"

  13. Boyos with toyos. by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

    This isn't really newsworthy... except to alert us there's one less swill-spitting high-pitched teenager playing Modern Warfare.
    I bet those Irish boys know a few words.

  14. For Great Justice by zixxt · · Score: 1

    This is a pretty swell example of fair justice and a fitting punishment. So much common sense this judge doth hath.

    --
    ---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  15. The Scene by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    Judge: "Kid, I order you to hand over your... XBox!!!"

    Kid: "Whatever" (makes mental note of which houses he had broke into that had xboxes)

    Judge: "And... your Live account password. Your gamer tag is now mine".

    Kid: "NOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo!".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The Scene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win!

    2. Re:The Scene by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      More like:

      Judge: "Kid, I order you to hand over your... XBox!!!"
      Kid: "Cool! It worked! I get to keep my Wii!"

    3. Re:The Scene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing the 13-year kid didn't like his PS3.

      Otherwise, he could've stolen a another PS3 and gamer ID as well.

    4. Re:The Scene by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Kid: "Oh no, my XBox... which is totally mine, yes... not one of five stolen ones I have in the cupboard at all..."

  16. Actually, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this would just teach me to lie to judges.

    Broccoli. Broccoli means a lot to me.

    1. Re:Actually, by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      That lie would be seen through very easily. Your bail condition would be to eat quite a few florets nightly, else land in jail.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
  17. Racism, Sexism, etc... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    > Human nature says transgressors must be punished.

    It is also human nature to throw things, like rocks, at children who take our toys. We learn better.

    People used to say human nature was that women were not landowners.

    If we find things that work, and that are economically efficient, we can work on changing minds. The political system will delay the effects of that effort greatly, but that does not mean we will not learn better in another century or three.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  18. Huh...an American kid would have volunteered... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    ...his sister rather than his Xbox.

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    1. Re:Huh...an American kid would have volunteered... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you mean to say their sister would have been their most prized possession? or they they would have lied? (and then been subject to penalty or perjury or some such).

  19. Geography vs Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Title should read British, not Irish (unless they are talking geography).

    http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-difference-between-the-united-kingdom-great-britain-england-and-a-whole-lot-more/

  20. Xbox? by mustPushCart · · Score: 1

    Sure your honour! You can have my xbox and now im sad....

    *goes back to his 360*

  21. And this here on Slashdot because..? by qrwe · · Score: 1

    I do not mean to be the iTroll here, but I honestly wonder how this story made it to the front page. The point was finally that the judge ruled that boy to give up something valuable to him, it could have been anything. Now it just happened to be an X-Box and *BAM*, it's here on Slashdot. Moreover, justice has confiscated computers too many times before to make the news flash complete. This article had even so made much more impression if the machine happened to be the tool of the commited crime or likewise, as it implies that the X-Box itself had something to do with the final judgement. However, so was not the case.

    --
    There are 2 types of people in the world - those who understand decimal and those who don't.
    1. Re:And this here on Slashdot because..? by metacell · · Score: 1

      What's remarkable is that the judge presumed guilt when deciding what the bail should be. From the fine article:

      The judge told the youth it would show him what it was like to have something he valued taken from him.

      The purpose of a bail shouldn't be to teach the accused a lesson. That's what the punishment is for - after the accused has been found guilty.

  22. One day I want a judge... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    ...who is smart enough to let the kid keep Xbox, take the games and leave him with just Duke Nukem Forever.

    1. Re:One day I want a judge... by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 1

      You would have to mandate some amount of play per day, or else this would have the same effect as just taking all the games. Or so I've heard.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    2. Re:One day I want a judge... by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      The best punishment would be to be forced to repeatedly play the first hour or so of the game, After that it goes from fucking aweful to just plain bad.

  23. The judge was likely outsmarted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the 13-year-old kids I've known wouldn't hesitate to tell the judge they treasure something which in actuality they'd never miss, in order to protect what was really important to them, such as their 3DS or Wii.

  24. Re:Excellent! said the kid by Locutus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not likely. He told the Judge it was his Xbox because he really liked his PS3 and didn't want to lose that.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  25. In America.. by Renraku · · Score: 1

    In America, it would turn out that this somehow violates his human rights and thus the punishment would go back to the standard massive fine for his parents, who would proceed to not pay the fine or go out and rob a liquor store to pay off the fine.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  26. Re:Excellent! said the kid by mcavic · · Score: 1

    Did someone come to his house to collect the Xbox? Because I have an old workstation (with a cast iron chassis and case) and 21" CRT here that I'd like to get rid of, but I can barely lift them.

  27. Lesson learned: by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    When an adult asks you "what do you own that means a lot to you", answer "my schoolbooks"...

  28. Linux box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad he didn't say his prized possession was a Linux box. Maybe next year kid...

  29. Nothing works by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    A criminologist who spend his live looking at ways to deal with criminals made this conclusion before taking his own life.

    What did he mean? Nobody can agree on that, at least not other criminologists who make their living coming up with new things to try. That is hardly suprising, were they to accept his final conclusion, they would be out of job.

    So what does it mean? First, you have to understand statistics and how easily they can be manipulated. Lets examine the most commonly used metric to determine the success of a criminal treatment program. Recidivism. That is, what percentage of criminals commit a crime again...

    Oh wait, there the problem starts already. That is NOT what recidivism is. It is a common lie that is easy to swallow but it is a LIE.

    Here is the real definition of recidivism as it exist in modern society:

    The recidivism rate is the percentage of people who having been found guilty of a crime are linked to another crime within a certain timeframe and have this link recorded.

    What is the difference? Well, the police does not have a 100% success rate at solving crimes. So it stands to reason not all those who commit a crime are actually found guilty for it. So, if a known criminal commits another crime but is not found GUILTY for it, he doesn't count. Conviction rates are very very low and many crimes do not even get reported.

    Take rape, we know many of them do not get reported, so the changes of a rapist being actually being sentenced for another rape are pretty low. That is why serial criminals are so common.

    Nonetheless, those who preach a certain method of dealing with criminals often claim they get a low percentage of recidivism. How low? This is an industry in which a reduction from 72% to 70% is considered a major breakthrough. Within statistcal error rate you say? Why yes, it is, that should tell you all you need to know by itself.

    The only 100% effective measure against criminal repeating himself is the death penalty and we tend to find that a bit much for shop lifting.

    All other methods? Hard to compare. As said, it depends on the effectivness of the police and justice system, not just in finding and convicting criminals but in linking them together.

    In Holland we don't have consecutive jail times. This means there is no motivation for the police to solve all crimes, if they know you done ten robberies, they go to court with the ones they feel they got the best evidence on and the rest remain officially unsolved. In germany they don't do this, possibly one of the reasons the germans got a far higher success rate. How do you compare then different methodes when the statistics are gathered very differently? You can't.

    For instance, it is often said the US has high crime rates. WRONG, the murder rate in the US vs Holland is pretty much the same. Yes there are undoubtely very rough areas in America but Holland got no go areas as well, they are small of course but so is the whole country. Per head. the crime rates are fairly similar.

    Part of the problem is that people are very ideological about this. They claim X works best not from evidence but because they feel it should be the best method. This goes both for the hardliners and the bleeding hearts. Who is right?

    Junkie related crime in Holland has gone down now junkies are kept of the street with free drugs and social care. They got no reason to rob anymore so they don't. It works? Depends, do you want to pay what could be called a ransom through your taxes to keep the junkies in line? Because nothing was solved, all we did in Holland is basically cut the cost of crime by increasing the cost of social well fare. The junkies were not cured, they are just "taken care off".

    And when the economy goes down the toilet thanks to the actions of right wingers were do you think they go to cut costs first?

    US super prisons don't work either. Or do they? What would be the crime rate if all the super prisons are emptied? Nobody is going to do that test so we wil

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Nothing works by Pete+(big-pete) · · Score: 2

      For instance, it is often said the US has high crime rates. WRONG, the murder rate in the US vs Holland is pretty much the same.

      What a load of bull - check the statistics, and you'll find the murder rate in the USA is approximately 5 times higher per capita than in the Netherlands.

      I suggest you do some research and adjust your world view.

      -- Pete.

  30. Oh come on! by Cito · · Score: 0
    The kid certainly should have said, "Well your Honor, I fell in love with this beautiful girl at school, I was always so scared to talk to her, but I finally did, unfortunately I learned she was moving away as her dad was in the military. But before she left she gave me this nice velcro wallet and I prize it amongst all else since I miss her so much"

    judge takes his family dollar $1.15 wallet, kid goes home with trollface playing Xbox

  31. A long distance dedication... by bmo · · Score: 0

    ... to the people saying "oh the poor lad"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvLxnOx0tzw

    Oingo Boingo Only A Lad Lyrics
    Johnny was bad, even as a child everybody could tell
    Everyone said if you don't get straight
    You'll surely go to hell

    But Johnny didn't care
    He was an outlaw by the time that he was
    Ten years old
    He didn't wanna do what he was told
    Just a prankster, juvenile gangster

    His teachers didn't understand
    They kicked him out of school
    At a tender early age
    Just because he didn't want to learn things
    (Had other interests)
    He liked to burn things

    The lady down the block
    She had a radio that Johnny wanted oh so bad
    So he took it the first chance he had
    Then he shot her in the leg
    And this is what she said
    Only a lad
    You really can't blame him
    Only a lad
    Society made him
    Only a lad
    He's our responsibility
    Only a lad
    He really couldn't help it
    Only a lad
    He didn't want to do it
    Only a lad
    He's underprivileged and abused
    Perhaps a little bit confused

    His parents gave up they couldn't influence his attitude
    Nobody could help
    The little man had no gratitude

    And when he stole the car
    Nobody dreamed that he would
    Try to take it so far
    He didn't mean to hit the poor man
    Who had to go and die
    It made the judge cry

    Only a lad
    He really couldn't help it
    Only a lad
    He didn't want to do it
    Only a lad
    He's underprivileged and abused
    Perhaps a little bit confused

    It's not his fault that he can't behave
    Society made him go astray
    Perhaps if we're nice he'll go away
    Perhaps he'll go away
    He'll go away

    (Repeat chorus)

    Hey there Johnny you really don't fool me
    You get away with murder
    And you think it's funny
    You don't give a damn if we live or if we die
    Hey there Johnny boy
    I hope you fry!

    1. Re:A long distance dedication... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 0

      And not forgetting:

      He was a sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
      And he said that he'd never, never do it again
      And of course he won't
      oh, not until the next time

    2. Re:A long distance dedication... by bmo · · Score: 0

      Friended because anyone who likes The Smiths can't be all bad.

      --
      BMO

  32. Eye for an eye by HertzaHaeon · · Score: 1

    Xbox for an Xbox.

  33. An Eye For An Eye by Nukedoom · · Score: 1

    If the kid was already stealing at a young age, he's probably not under the best supervision of sorts. Taking an Xbox is all fine and dandy on paper, and in rhetorical circles of justice, but I'm not sure if it'll be effective. Maybe it'll just motivate the kid to continue stealing. Or it might stop him. Who knows? But I wouldn't like to leave it too much to chance. Why not put him in a program of sorts? Clockwork Orange his ass...or at least do more than eye for an eye.

  34. Not Appopriate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While at first glance this seems like a clever way to teach a young teen a lesson, it really isn't. Punishing stealing by "stealing" is pretty stupid. All it does is tell the boy that society thinks "An eye for an eye." is acceptable.

    If you want to fix the problem, get him some better parenting/parents.

  35. Re:Excellent! said the kid by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I chucked out my old SGI machines not so long ago. The trick is to remove all the outer panels and PCBs, they're about half the weight of the machine. You're on your own with the monitor though.

    --
    No sig today...
  36. I think it's a bad call by the judge. by lexsird · · Score: 1

    I think it will resort in the kid putting blame on the Judge and not learning a real lesson. Community service to work off his debts and some jail time would probably serve as a better lesson. Weekends in jail and free time doing some shitty job versus taking something that can be replaced. Hmmm....

    I have a hypothesis about "criminal" behavior. I had a professor recently who was retired from working in the prison industry. He assured us, that some of those people were complete animals in there, and it was without doubt necessary to keep them confined. Without doubt we have vicious people in our prisons, and they did things to get there, they weren't just snatched off the street without reason.

    What if "criminal" behavior is a brain evolution problem? Bear with me here. For some people civilization isn't something their race hasn't been accustom to for that long. If your people come from the wilds, you will have a brain evolution centered towards survival skills in the clime you are from. What success ever has societies had with integrating aboriginals into their mix? Mostly its a destruction of their way of life and cultures, with them being victimized, marginalized and constantly struggling to adapt and playing a great game of "catch up".

    Those same "criminal" aspects of a person would be very self serving in a hostile environment or where "civilization" doesn't exist. Very often what we deal with in "criminals" are predatory instincts run unchecked. I think we aren't dealing with channeling predatory instincts, but instead of trying to eradicate them. Trying to eradicate something of that deeply ingrained nature is going to fail I think; the individual's defense mechanisms will defeat it. This is why you see such blatant hatred and anger in prisons. This is a defense mechanism to being torn down in the mind.

    First we need to figure out who has the regressive brain structures early on and work towards cultivating their instincts in a positive way. (This requires a socialistic approach, but that isn't such a bad thing. ("Socialism isn't the boogieman" is another lecture. It's followed by "Rebuilding the Education System Smart".)) Catching the problems early on can't be emphasized enough, for its in early child development in which problems are rooted and where the best potential for proper cultivation also happens. Parenting is one of the most important jobs in our known universe. Sadly, it's taken a backseat to the point of criminal neglect by the modern world. We have too much engaging adults as it is and the result is, children and the science of raising them to be better human beings is being downgraded in importance.

    Look at our welfare system. We are paying people who are complete losers to have kids in our current welfare system. We should be paying them NOT to have kids or sterilizing them and then giving them a check. (Actually we should just help them manage their time and resources and guide them towards a wonderful and fulfilling life.) These are collectively BAD PARENTS. Not individually, but as a whole this isn't the clime to be farming children.

    I think if we are to effectively deal with "crime" we need to not just focus on the individual accountability, but also on the "big picture". This is very important not just to reduce "crime" but to advance the entire human race out of its reptile brained way of dealing with things into more intelligent and productive methods. We shouldn't be lollygagging about either, we are on a limited time frame if you haven't thought about it. I have and that is the lecture "Space: Lets get there while we can." which is related to "Oil: if we don't stop, we will become oil."

    Back to the subject at hand. I think the judge was a wanker on this one. This isn't going to engage the kid except to piss him off and teach him not to get caught. You just end up with a more careful criminal. Taking something precious to the kid is going to traumatize him to some degree, and it being an authoritarian figure doing it, all the more encourages re

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  37. Sure thing by mistralol · · Score: 1

    Coming from around that area I can assure you that this will not stop him from stealing again. All he will do is go out an get another xbox. You go round to his mates and play on his xbox (probably also stolen). The teenagers around here are almost unique. At the start of each summer we have the 12th July also known locally as the "silly season". When school stops at the end of June and the kids have nothing on for the next two months they tend to kick off the summer with a little bit of recreational rioting! It happens year after year and nothing is really ever done about it.

  38. Punishments should stop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Problems should be removed or fixed for good, not punished.

    I have this idea here to fix problems, I call it "the final solution"...

  39. build a replacement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they're going to take his Xbox away then they should give him something in return. If they give him a Linux box with a copy of Python and Pygame or some other game toolkit on, and no internet but just a copy of the documentation, he could make his own games. It would be a chance to productive with his time and developing skills in programming etc. would be a lot more productive then simply moping around with no Xbox. After all, it's not like they took his TV away; he's just going to replace one zero sum activity with another.

  40. Country is incorrect. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Belfast is in Northern Ireland, not Ireland.

    Thank you and good night.

  41. Judge orders 13 year old boy to surrender his xbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can read detailed story of "Judge orders 13 year old boy to surrender his xbox" here
    Complete story

  42. Could have been worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It least he didn't tell the judge he valued his balls.

  43. Acheivement unlocked: Bailed (100g) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    although the cynic in me thinks that kid is just going to be playing a lot of angry birds for the forseeable...

  44. Update by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    And in other news, a 13 year old boy in belfast has committed another robbery... The victim reports their xbox was stolen.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  45. Awesome philosophy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when someone does something bad, the idea is to punish him by becoming like him?
    Awesome fucking philosophy, Mr. Judge! Top notch!
    And with a helpful lesson: It's a crime when you do it, but it's aww-right when a Judge does it!

    I wonder if he will become a judge, just to be able to hurt people out of anger about the system. I would.

    Humanity is no unbelievably fuckin' stupid sometimes...

  46. Irish Eyes Are Not Smiling by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    Belfast is in Northern Ireland, not Ireland itself. People from Northern Ireland are loyalists to the British monarchy and are just as likely to call themselves British as they are to call themselves Irish.

    Overlooking that ignores the great numbers of people who have died as a result of the wars for Irish identity.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  47. Northern Ireland != Ireland by UbuntuniX · · Score: 1

    It's a whole different country. Invest in a map.

  48. You don't understand by Weezul · · Score: 3, Informative

    The judge accepted his Xbox as part of his bail, not a punishment.

    Europeans are much less accepting of the discriminatory & uncivilized practice of bail bondsmen, outlawing their activities in many jurisdictions. Instead, courts try harder to make the bail fit the accused means while still forcing their appearance at trial.

    We should ideally outlaw bail bondsmen in the U.S. too, but they know their activities are morally bankrupt, and so hire lobbyists.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
    1. Re:You don't understand by TwiztidK · · Score: 1

      We can't outlaw bail bondsmen because it would put American heros like Dog the Bounty Hunter out of work!

      --
      Sent from my iPhone 5
    2. Re:You don't understand by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      It would put one of my local area bail bondsmen out of business as well.
      We had a shooting.
      Some punks had been stealing cars from a part of town known for elevated crime rates.
      Punks tried to steal old guy's car.
      Old guy yells at punk to "get off his lawn" as it were.
      punk threatens old guy.
      Guy shoots punk with long rifle.
      Old guy is just getting by and can't afford bail or bond.
      local bondsman and former cop turned radio host (Tom Sullivan) bails guy out.
      Bondsman is good guy. (as is radio guy).

      Same bondsman talks to a (hopefully former) bad guy being released from prison who can't find a place to live
      bondsman arranges for bad guy to live outside of allowed area by coordinating with cops.
      bad guy is now former bad guy being nominally productive working on a 20 acre farm, but not back in trouble.
      Bondsman is good guy.

      I realize that many bondsman are not good guys, but we have a local one that is really good, puts his money where his mouth is, and ironically uses Dog the Bounty hunter in his ads (by way of "we're not even remotely like this guy").
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    3. Re:You don't understand by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      That guy does genuinely sound like a good guy. Kudos to him. However, telling his story is like telling the story of good cops, the ones who don't use tasers every 5 seconds, and genuinely are in it to help the people. It'll get lost in the shuffle, and forgotten by the time the next bad cop story comes along.

    4. Re:You don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a retired lawyer who has, among other varied things, done criminal law and repesented some bail bondsmen, I find yur comment very well informed and perceptive. In the old days, Junior showed up for court because he and his brothers knew Dad had the farm up as security for his bail and they would beat the tar out of him if he cost them the farm. No crook cares if AAA Bail Bonds takes a hit, and politics usually guarantees that they don't have to pay the full amount on the ones that do skip. I quit going bail myself after the first two educated, white-collar clients, one of whom was appointed to a signficant position at the White House, skipped on me. A good family I know that had just taken a nasty cut in pay with kids in college just had to pay two months' pay to have a commercial bondsman post bail for their high school son caught holding a stimulant in his girlfriend's bag he was holding. In federal court, on the identical charge, he would have been issued a summons instead of being arrested and their fractional-deposit system works well.

    5. Re:You don't understand by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      *Why I Am Not a Christian* Woot! Woot!

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  49. Re:Excellent! said the kid by TheCarp · · Score: 2

    Just put it on craigslist and someone will come and take it for free.

    Though.... a 21" crt? Those aren't too heavy. If lifting those is hard, then I suggest keeping it and lifting it every day until its not so heavy. Its cheaper than the gym.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  50. Wrong... that's not why recidivism rates are high by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    I wish people would get their heads out of their asses and realize that punishment and pain have basically no correlation. It's that mentality which leads to our poor recidivism rate.

    Most of the current research into the matter seems to indicate that the real culprit is how we handle our prisons. We throw new offenders in with hardened offenders, keep them out of society unduly long and don't work toward helping them come out of prison with a better education and job skills.

    I am a believer in retributive justice. I don't like our system precisely because there is retribution, simply mindless punishment with a goal of balancing scales of justice between victim and victimizer (which is the ultimate goal of a retributive system).

  51. Virginity by abhishekupadhya · · Score: 1

    is what the kid should have said. He'd know how it'd feel if something really valued was taken away from him...

    1. Re:Virginity by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But it's Northern Ireland. There have been sufficient scandals in the recent past of local judges, police officers, politicians etc. using the local child care homes as boy-buggering brothels (not the best of alliterations, I know) so the boy would know pretty clearly how he'd lose his virginity.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  52. Re:Excellent! said the kid by NoSleepDemon · · Score: 1

    Certainly, if you'd like to put your back out, I've hosted plenty of LAN parties back when everyone and their mum owned a CRT, and the fancier PC setups with 21" monitors were the ultimate nightmare to assist with. Those things are so front heavy they're more cumbersome than anything else, would hate to drop one on my toes.

  53. a better choice... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Put the bugger in public stockades and let the people who's homes that have been broken into do what they want to him. Honestly there needs to be more direct punishment to these little turds.

    Our society of "dont harm the children" is causing generations of hoodlums that need their asses kicked.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  54. The drug or the person? by dj245 · · Score: 1

    I've not known many marijuana users, or alcoholics for that matter who will harm someone to get money to acquire their drugs. Crack, Cocain, Meth, Pain Killers, Tranquilizer, etc users on the other hand, will go to great lengths to get their next high. I've seen many, many friends go down this path, and it's truly sad to see.

    Is this indicative of the drug or the type of person who is drawn to or particularly succeptable to addiction to the drug?

    For example- We all know the stereotype of the lazy pothead who sleeps on his friends' couch and smokes weed all day, bouncing from low-paying job to low-paying job and never doing anything productive with his life. Without weed, would he have been an astronaut? Or is that just the type of person he was anyway?

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:The drug or the person? by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      Without weed, would he have been an astronaut?

      Weed vs. rockets:
      Both get you high, one just gets you higher than the other.

  55. Irish judge in Belfast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's a judge in Belfast, it's a British judge.

  56. Re:Excellent! said the kid by Hatta · · Score: 1

    That's a real shame. Some people still appreciate old machines. You should give them a chance to play with them.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  57. Re:Excellent! said the kid by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 2

    If he was really thinking, he'd have said he valued his homework.

    --
    I8-D
  58. You misunderstand the principle of bail by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

    This is exactly what bail is for : you give something to the authorities, whether a house, goods, money, or ..., to be returned to you when you show up at trial. In trade, they don't arrest you, even though an arrest order has been given, and you get to leave prison with a stern letter asking you not to leave the country. For bail, the question is not guilt, the question is "what can you give the authorities so that they can be assured you won't leave the country to run from trial". The general practice for kids is a large sum of money from the parents, obviously this is hardly an optimal solution.

    Note that arresting someone before trial, never mind a minor, requires the authorization of 2 judges, with possibility for appeal, which was either not taken, or failed. Generally this occurs because the person was caught red-handed by the police and arrested during the crime, or running from the cops. That may not equate to a conviction for theft, but it was the judicial system that ordered his arrest, not the police or the government.

    I'll repeat it so it's obvious : he'll get this back at trial (whether or not he's convicted). Meanwhile, the kid doesn't have to miss school.

    1. Re:You misunderstand the principle of bail by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      "The judge told the youth that the surrender of the Xbox would show him what it was like to have something he really valued taken from him."

      That sounds like punishment to me.

    2. Re:You misunderstand the principle of bail by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Despite that smug remark (probably illegal for a judge : it shows the judge is presuming guilt). This action is a good thing.

      The kid gets to leave jail (without his parents needing a bundle). Presumably there wasn't much xbox playing in jail either.

  59. An eye for an eye? by lalcan · · Score: 1

    Are we down to an eye for an eye kind of justice?

    Laws mean nothing, any lawyer will learn them all, but it takes an ethical person to be a good member of society. What this kid learned today is that next time, he better be sure not to be catched.

    Fast & easy is not always the best solution, as this judge will learn later in life.

  60. Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, this is why getting rid of books like that from school is a bad idea.

    "Oh please, Mr. Judge, Don't throw me into the briar patch!"

  61. Re:Excellent! said the kid by flaming+error · · Score: 1

    I would have told the Judge my prized possession was the Sta-Puf Marshmallow man.

  62. Re:Excellent! said the kid by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    Try donating it to a museum.

  63. Do you reeeally think that is a good judge? by Marrow · · Score: 1

    The boy has not been convicted yet. So the judge is punishing him in advance of seeing all the evidence and hearing all the testimony. I guess the kid can expect to be convicted based on a biased judge and fiat exclusion of exculpatory evidence.
    The good news is that the kid is getting a lesson. A lesson on how the system protects functions that are poorly designed and do not work.

  64. What if the kid replied ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... "my little sister" to the judge's question?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  65. What Ireland? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, the American education system. That's Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You Yanks like to call it all "England"...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland

  66. You don't know your history, do you? by fantomas · · Score: 1

    Saying that everybody in Northern Ireland is a loyalist to the British monarchy suggests you don't know your history, or you're a troll.

    I suggest you read a few articles on wikipedia at the very least: start with The Troubles. You'd be a foolish man indeed to walk into a bar in Northern Ireland and loudly declare that Bobby Sands was a loyalist to the British Monarchy.

  67. As Charlton Heston would have said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..."when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"

  68. Re:Excellent! said the kid by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, those 21" CRTs were made heavy back then...You would think they used them to keep the desks from floating away.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  69. Re:Excellent! said the kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hilarious, but I doubt the judge is that stupid. :)

  70. I guess in my case... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess in my case if the judge wanted to take something away from me that I own and gives me a lot of pleasure, he'd say, "Surrender Dorothy." ... ...

    Which is my computer, R. Dorothy Wainwright.

  71. Innocent until proven guilty by protektor · · Score: 1

    Wow I wasn't aware that Belfast had become like a third world country where the judge without a trial or hearing declares guilt and meets out a punishment right there on the spot. I guess he thinks he can be judge, jury and executioner and screw due legal process. The judge has no legal clue if the kid is guilty. He automatically assuming the kid is the thief which has not been proven in a court of law yet. The comment by the judge was completely out of line and shows his clear bias in this case. The judge is not ruling by law but by what he thinks without legally proven facts. The judge should be immediately removed from the bench and censured for this. This is clearly a judge out of control, spouting out his opinion on the results of the case before the case has even had opening arguments.

    Remind me to never go anywhere near Belfast given they have out of control judges and don't follow common law practices.