Well so far you don't seem to be able to say ANYTHING yourself.ROGUEDD wrote:
Couldn't have said it better myself tbh.ruisleipa wrote:
you mean, until the age at which their kids start driving? It's so arbitrary it's ridiculous.lowing wrote:
Yup, jail for the parents of kids who commit crimes.Errr...no. Being allowed to drive means that you have passed a driving test and are old enough to drive. It has fuck all to do with being 'responsible' in the criminal sense. Fucking up on the road and having your driving license removed means you are no longer able to drive - but you can still vote, for example. If anything I'd say being old enough to vote is the point at which society says you are responsible for your actions. As I said before:lowing wrote:
In the eyes of society, driving assumes responsibility. Or did you not know that? When people do shit or fuck uo on the road enough times it proves themselves irresponsible and they have their driving privileges removed. Not sure how this does not make sense.Generally you can drive a moped at an earlier age than a car - what does that say about responsibility? If you can drive a bike on the street you must be responsible, surely? People of different ages in different countries are equally responsible because they can drive at different ages? Your argument is nonsense.so driving a car makes you responsible? What about in countries or states where the age limit is diferent for driving a car? What about driving a moped? Or a bike? Could you be any more arbitrary?
Incidentally, according to this website:
http://www.2pass.co.uk/ages2.htm
By the age of 16 in all states in the US you can get a learner's driving licence. So by your argument the girl who was 16 who sent her pictures to the guy should be held responsible for her actions.
So, surprisingly, you do agree with the rest of us - that the girl is at minimum equally responsible and it's not at all completely the guy's fault.As turq said, mandatory drug sentencing and over-reaction for minor crimes is the reason for prison overcrowding.lowing wrote:
Not executing capital offenders is a contributing reason we have over crowding
I find it strange how you think I am wrong in my beliefs, yet, as I practice what I preach, I am the one not needing govt. welfare, in prison, have debt I can not manage, a criminal record or unemployed. I am also not the one facing jail time for child pornography.
If I am living my life all wrong, I will just have to settle for it I guess.
You can stop bigging yourself up by the way, the fact you've never been in trouble with law etc etc (which we only have your word for) has nothing to do with anything.
You know how when you were young and you maybe hit someone and the cops didn't arrest you and throw you in jail cos you were young and foolish and you had to learn your lesson? Well you learnt that without being gang raped for 12 years right? Maybe jailing this 17 year old for 12 years woldn't give him 'respect for authority and the law' and instead he'd realise the law is an ass and come out of jail being a hardened criminal. Yeah, that'd show him!
Or...maybe, if he got a warning and some minor punishment he would learn his lesson more quickly, be able to finish his education, realise that the law can be merciful, and become a productive member of society.
You, on the other hand, would see him stoned before that.
I'm not saying much because I'm laughing at how retarded your arguements are. That, or as I said, you are fucking insane.lowing wrote:
Well so far you don't seem to be able to say ANYTHING yourself.ROGUEDD wrote:
Couldn't have said it better myself tbh.ruisleipa wrote:
you mean, until the age at which their kids start driving? It's so arbitrary it's ridiculous.lowing wrote:
Yup, jail for the parents of kids who commit crimes.Errr...no. Being allowed to drive means that you have passed a driving test and are old enough to drive. It has fuck all to do with being 'responsible' in the criminal sense. Fucking up on the road and having your driving license removed means you are no longer able to drive - but you can still vote, for example. If anything I'd say being old enough to vote is the point at which society says you are responsible for your actions. As I said before:lowing wrote:
In the eyes of society, driving assumes responsibility. Or did you not know that? When people do shit or fuck uo on the road enough times it proves themselves irresponsible and they have their driving privileges removed. Not sure how this does not make sense.Generally you can drive a moped at an earlier age than a car - what does that say about responsibility? If you can drive a bike on the street you must be responsible, surely? People of different ages in different countries are equally responsible because they can drive at different ages? Your argument is nonsense.so driving a car makes you responsible? What about in countries or states where the age limit is diferent for driving a car? What about driving a moped? Or a bike? Could you be any more arbitrary?
Incidentally, according to this website:
http://www.2pass.co.uk/ages2.htm
By the age of 16 in all states in the US you can get a learner's driving licence. So by your argument the girl who was 16 who sent her pictures to the guy should be held responsible for her actions.
So, surprisingly, you do agree with the rest of us - that the girl is at minimum equally responsible and it's not at all completely the guy's fault.
As turq said, mandatory drug sentencing and over-reaction for minor crimes is the reason for prison overcrowding.
You can stop bigging yourself up by the way, the fact you've never been in trouble with law etc etc (which we only have your word for) has nothing to do with anything.
You know how when you were young and you maybe hit someone and the cops didn't arrest you and throw you in jail cos you were young and foolish and you had to learn your lesson? Well you learnt that without being gang raped for 12 years right? Maybe jailing this 17 year old for 12 years woldn't give him 'respect for authority and the law' and instead he'd realise the law is an ass and come out of jail being a hardened criminal. Yeah, that'd show him!
Or...maybe, if he got a warning and some minor punishment he would learn his lesson more quickly, be able to finish his education, realise that the law can be merciful, and become a productive member of society.
You, on the other hand, would see him stoned before that.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
Sorry ya feel that wayROGUEDD wrote:
I'm not saying much because I'm laughing at how retarded your arguements are. That, or as I said, you are fucking insane.lowing wrote:
Well so far you don't seem to be able to say ANYTHING yourself.ROGUEDD wrote:
Couldn't have said it better myself tbh.
They were already saved by atleast 50 people.
Sending him to jail will just turn him into a cop hating hardass future crime commiter
Sending him to jail will just turn him into a cop hating hardass future crime commiter
15 more years! 15 more years!
Which is good, the more cops he'll kill, the less tickets you'll get.Mitch wrote:
They were already saved by atleast 50 people.
Sending him to jail will just turn him into a cop hating hardass future crime commiter
I am not interested in rehabiliation from our prisons, I am interested in punishment for crimes.Mitch wrote:
They were already saved by atleast 50 people.
Sending him to jail will just turn him into a cop hating hardass future crime commiter
Rehabilitation is the criminals responsibilty not societies.
I was joking. As in "Don't you dare post that ugly thing" sort of a "What has been seen cannot be unseen" type thingburnzz wrote:
i don't get it - you are advocating a life's sentence if the pictures she took were of an underaged, overweight girl?-Sh1fty- wrote:
If she was fat he deserves 20 to life for spreading the horror.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
hes just giving you a hard time.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I was joking. As in "Don't you dare post that ugly thing" sort of a "What has been seen cannot be unseen" type thingburnzz wrote:
i don't get it - you are advocating a life's sentence if the pictures she took were of an underaged, overweight girl?-Sh1fty- wrote:
If she was fat he deserves 20 to life for spreading the horror.
I don't think that's a very good way of thinking about it. You're taking some average kid, who's worst offence committed during his life might have been to drive whilst not quite sober, and then putting him in an environment with hardened criminals. Once he's released he'll most likely commit worse crimes. By punishing people in this way, you're creating future criminals.lowing wrote:
I am not interested in rehabiliation from our prisons, I am interested in punishment for crimes.Mitch wrote:
They were already saved by atleast 50 people.
Sending him to jail will just turn him into a cop hating hardass future crime commiter
Rehabilitation is the criminals responsibilty not societies.
DUI is one thing. What do you suppose should happen to a person who, while DUI, kills a family of 5 in their mini van on the way to their kids sporting event? let me guess, rehabilitate him?ghettoperson wrote:
I don't think that's a very good way of thinking about it. You're taking some average kid, who's worst offence committed during his life might have been to drive whilst not quite sober, and then putting him in an environment with hardened criminals. Once he's released he'll most likely commit worse crimes. By punishing people in this way, you're creating future criminals.lowing wrote:
I am not interested in rehabiliation from our prisons, I am interested in punishment for crimes.Mitch wrote:
They were already saved by atleast 50 people.
Sending him to jail will just turn him into a cop hating hardass future crime commiter
Rehabilitation is the criminals responsibilty not societies.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-08 13:24:55)
Not what I'm talking about Lowing. I just used, as an example, that he drove home slightly drunk one time. Which I'm not condoning, nor saying isn't a crime, but I used it hypothetically.
So did I. and if his actions resulted in the death of others? What then? Same mistake after all. "He drove home slightly drunk one time". Do we take a chance on hardening him up in prison? while giving revenge/justice to the victims families? Or recognize it was a mistake and slap him on the wrist?ghettoperson wrote:
Not what I'm talking about Lowing. I just used, as an example, that he drove home slightly drunk one time. Which I'm not condoning, nor saying isn't a crime, but I used it hypothetically.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-08 13:54:24)
but it's not the same mistake is it? one mistake is driving home slightly drunk and going to bed. the other is driving home and klilling some people.lowing wrote:
So did I. and if his actions resulted in the death of others? What then? Same mistake after all. "He drove home slightly drunk one time". Do we take a chance on hardening him up in prison? while giving revenge/justice to the victims families? Or recognize it was a mistake and slap him on the wrist?ghettoperson wrote:
Not what I'm talking about Lowing. I just used, as an example, that he drove home slightly drunk one time. Which I'm not condoning, nor saying isn't a crime, but I used it hypothetically.
how the hell is that the same?
your attitude towards rehabilitation, were it shared by your society as a whole, which sadly sometimes I get the feeling it is, just leads to an endless cycle of crime and a corrupt society.
Driving home drunk is the same "mistake". The end result of that mistake is what is different. The end result does not change who he is as a person. So are we gunna punish him for his mistake? Or the results of his mistake?ruisleipa wrote:
but it's not the same mistake is it? one mistake is driving home slightly drunk and going to bed. the other is driving home and klilling some people.lowing wrote:
So did I. and if his actions resulted in the death of others? What then? Same mistake after all. "He drove home slightly drunk one time". Do we take a chance on hardening him up in prison? while giving revenge/justice to the victims families? Or recognize it was a mistake and slap him on the wrist?ghettoperson wrote:
Not what I'm talking about Lowing. I just used, as an example, that he drove home slightly drunk one time. Which I'm not condoning, nor saying isn't a crime, but I used it hypothetically.
how the hell is that the same?
your attitude towards rehabilitation, were it shared by your society as a whole, which sadly sometimes I get the feeling it is, just leads to an endless cycle of crime and a corrupt society.
Him being a "nice guy" has got little to do with it, the victims family still deserves revenge/justice equal to the pain he has caused.
Last edited by lowing (2010-03-08 14:27:37)
It's not surprising that he wasn't sorry for it, because the law is pretty dysfunctional regarding this act.lowing wrote:
I show compassion for those deserving of it. This guy was not sorry he did it and was defiant in the order to take it down.
So you believe it makes sense to send a minor to jail for possibly as much as 12 years for distributing a naked picture?lowing wrote:
3. By the age of 16 and show some sort of responsibilty you can get a permit. The girl fucked up she did it to herself, this guy took what was not his to give and humiliated this girl in front of the world. She trusted him and now regrets it. He violated her trust and her privacy and dioes not give a shit. Not sure how you can not see the difference.
That fuckhead did get a warning and a chance to take it down, he refused. Fuck him
If I took a picture of my ex-gf naked and posted it on the internet, I could be sued, but because she's not a minor, I wouldn't go to jail.
It seems pretty ridiculous that a law aimed at busting adults for child porn is being used to bust a minor like he's a child porn distributor. If the girl was a day over 18 years old, then he wouldn't be going to jail. Doesn't that minor difference resulting in major differences of a penalty seem a bit insane to you?
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-03-08 18:44:39)
Look, I'm not gonna bother with arguing with you, Lowing, as you seem to refuse any argument as utter nonsense. All I have to say at this point, is that if the boy deserves 12 years and gang rape for CP distribution, than the girl deserves 24 years for production AND distribution.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!
lol good point.ROGUEDD wrote:
Look, I'm not gonna bother with arguing with you, Lowing, as you seem to refuse any argument as utter nonsense. All I have to say at this point, is that if the boy deserves 12 years and gang rape for CP distribution, than the girl deserves 24 years for production AND distribution.
heheheh.
Do you have any idea how the criminal justice system works? Driving home drunk should be punished because it is illegal to drive while drunk. Killing a family of five should be punished MORE because it's a WORSE MISTAKE!lowing wrote:
Driving home drunk is the same "mistake". The end result of that mistake is what is different. The end result does not change who he is as a person. So are we gunna punish him for his mistake? Or the results of his mistake?
Him being a "nice guy" has got little to do with it, the victims family still deserves revenge/justice equal to the pain he has caused.
If you seriously think that that guirl getting a bit embarrassed because of some naughty pics being on the internet is worthy of him getting the 12 years in jail you're a bit slow in the head I'm afraid.
It also says alot for his character. Fuck himTurquoise wrote:
It's not surprising that he wasn't sorry for it, because the law is pretty dysfunctional regarding this act.lowing wrote:
I show compassion for those deserving of it. This guy was not sorry he did it and was defiant in the order to take it down.
it hardly says fuck all about his character tbh.lowing wrote:
It also says alot for his character. Fuck him
Never said it made sense, I am saying I do not give a shit about what happens to this guy. He is a jack-off with no regret or respect. Fuck him.Turquoise wrote:
So you believe it makes sense to send a minor to jail for possibly as much as 12 years for distributing a naked picture?lowing wrote:
3. By the age of 16 and show some sort of responsibilty you can get a permit. The girl fucked up she did it to herself, this guy took what was not his to give and humiliated this girl in front of the world. She trusted him and now regrets it. He violated her trust and her privacy and dioes not give a shit. Not sure how you can not see the difference.
That fuckhead did get a warning and a chance to take it down, he refused. Fuck him
If I took a picture of my ex-gf naked and posted it on the internet, I could be sued, but because she's not a minor, I wouldn't go to jail.
It seems pretty ridiculous that a law aimed at busting adults for child porn is being used to bust a minor like he's a child porn distributor. If the girl was a day over 18 years old, then he wouldn't be going to jail. Doesn't that minor difference resulting in major differences of a penalty seem a bit insane to you?
except 1 of them learned their lesson and regrets it very much, while the other broke trust and privacy,and does not give a shit.ROGUEDD wrote:
Look, I'm not gonna bother with arguing with you, Lowing, as you seem to refuse any argument as utter nonsense. All I have to say at this point, is that if the boy deserves 12 years and gang rape for CP distribution, than the girl deserves 24 years for production AND distribution.
Eventually, this guy is gunna learn a lesson.
Killing the family while DUI is a RESULT of the same mistake. That mistake being DUI.ruisleipa wrote:
lol good point.ROGUEDD wrote:
Look, I'm not gonna bother with arguing with you, Lowing, as you seem to refuse any argument as utter nonsense. All I have to say at this point, is that if the boy deserves 12 years and gang rape for CP distribution, than the girl deserves 24 years for production AND distribution.
heheheh.Do you have any idea how the criminal justice system works? Driving home drunk should be punished because it is illegal to drive while drunk. Killing a family of five should be punished MORE because it's a WORSE MISTAKE!lowing wrote:
Driving home drunk is the same "mistake". The end result of that mistake is what is different. The end result does not change who he is as a person. So are we gunna punish him for his mistake? Or the results of his mistake?
Him being a "nice guy" has got little to do with it, the victims family still deserves revenge/justice equal to the pain he has caused.
If you seriously think that that guirl getting a bit embarrassed because of some naughty pics being on the internet is worthy of him getting the 12 years in jail you're a bit slow in the head I'm afraid.
THen you are the one who is thick in the headruisleipa wrote:
it hardly says fuck all about his character tbh.lowing wrote:
It also says alot for his character. Fuck him
So since she "learned her lesson", she deserves to be free of CP production and distribution charges? Lowing, if that is your honest belief, than you are one fucked up individual.lowing wrote:
except 1 of them learned their lesson and regrets it very much, while the other broke trust and privacy,and does not give a shit.ROGUEDD wrote:
Look, I'm not gonna bother with arguing with you, Lowing, as you seem to refuse any argument as utter nonsense. All I have to say at this point, is that if the boy deserves 12 years and gang rape for CP distribution, than the girl deserves 24 years for production AND distribution.
Eventually, this guy is gunna learn a lesson.
Make X-meds a full member, for the sake of 15 year old anal gangbang porn watchers everywhere!