Fair treatment is a concept which cannot be taken away. You can take away rights, but never "fair treatment", unless you are a barbaric nation. As I clearly pointed out, that man paid for his crimes with an incredible gaol sentence, and felt remorse and sorrow for what he did. This was an old man, living in the shadow of what he did in his younger days. If an advanced civilisation such as ours (that's debatable) cannot ever forgive people under any circumstances, then we can hardly deserve to call ourselves "human".
While I think that the judge was overreacting with his decision, I must ask, what is the use of Crimenet at all?
While the odds of a juror using it may be microscopic, and so on a case-by-case basis not enough to cancel a trial, somewhere along the line, in one of the many cases in a year, someone will use it.
While some portions of Crimenet may be useful, the only possible result of having past convictions available is to set people against the person convicted.
Many Australians may remember the child molesterer Luthwaite who was release approx 1 year ago, after an incredibly long gaol sentence, and he was certainly incapable of being a danger to society. When the public found out about this, he was hounded into hiding, harrassed and attacked at every turn. Do we really want to place the so called "rights" of Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Information above the rights of a person to fair justice and treatment in society?
Simply, put yourself in the shoes of someone who was once picked up for a crime (whatever it is), and has spent their time in gaol. When you move back into society, what could be worse than someone finding out and then making your life unbearable.
The costs of these records being on Crimenet infinitely outweigh the benefits, and so it should certainly not be allowed to continue publishing these sorts of records of people.
Slashdot Mirror
Fair treatment is a concept which cannot be taken away. You can take away rights, but never "fair treatment", unless you are a barbaric nation. As I clearly pointed out, that man paid for his crimes with an incredible gaol sentence, and felt remorse and sorrow for what he did. This was an old man, living in the shadow of what he did in his younger days. If an advanced civilisation such as ours (that's debatable) cannot ever forgive people under any circumstances, then we can hardly deserve to call ourselves "human".
While the odds of a juror using it may be microscopic, and so on a case-by-case basis not enough to cancel a trial, somewhere along the line, in one of the many cases in a year, someone will use it.
While some portions of Crimenet may be useful, the only possible result of having past convictions available is to set people against the person convicted.
Many Australians may remember the child molesterer Luthwaite who was release approx 1 year ago, after an incredibly long gaol sentence, and he was certainly incapable of being a danger to society. When the public found out about this, he was hounded into hiding, harrassed and attacked at every turn. Do we really want to place the so called "rights" of Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Information above the rights of a person to fair justice and treatment in society?
Simply, put yourself in the shoes of someone who was once picked up for a crime (whatever it is), and has spent their time in gaol. When you move back into society, what could be worse than someone finding out and then making your life unbearable.
The costs of these records being on Crimenet infinitely outweigh the benefits, and so it should certainly not be allowed to continue publishing these sorts of records of people.