Moron Imprisoned for Rude Online Behavior

While your system of criminal law is different than ours, do not kid yourself that your Parliament does not write criminal laws and set the punishments. You just do not have a codified system like our where every criminal law is set forth in a statute.

What does that mean? Our Congress writes laws, so does your Parliment. In both systems, the courts are the final arbiter of whether those laws are enforceable or not. Our courts can and do rule acts of Congress unconstitional. I am not sure what distinction you are pointing to that makes any difference.

 

From the site of the Australian Government Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/legal_system.html

I see the difference. Ours is divided in three branches... judicial, executive and legislative. Yours is the other way around.

 

The first paragraph of your link rob "The Australian legal system is based on a fundamental belief in the rule of law, justice and the independence of the judiciary. All people—Australians and non-Australians alike—are treated equally before the law and safeguards exist to ensure that people are not treated arbitrarily or unfairly by governments or officials."

To create a law here, I need to word it correctly, then I need to get two members to support it to introduce it to parliament then it goes through to Senate. If they all agree the new law is needed then it is put into legislation. Along with legislation comes a minimum and a maximum sentence. That's their lot.

From then on it goes to an entirely separate justice system, who, based on ALL the facts will determine the appropriate punishment. The system is entirely separate to government so if it was an unfair law or other circumstances arise to counteract the newly formed crime then the judge, who has no 'bias' must judge the merits of every case. He must work within the law so if the crime mandates a minimum of 1 year then he has no choice and the criminal will be given a minimum of 1 year. If the law is deemed unfit, such as the recent migration act, then the judiciary will throw it out or completely overturn the law. This, as has just proved here, often ends up destoying any faith in the laws creators, which, in our case is our current PM who is headed into oblivion very shortly.

 

Wow. We just tie the accused and dunk them in the lake. If they don't sink, they're witches, so we burn them. The ones that do sink are innocent. Of course they also drown, but no system is perfect.

 

Yeah, um, the US judiciary is independent too. They are separate and independent from the legislative and executive branches - just like you are describing your system. Our courts throw out laws as well. You really seem to have no clue what you are talking when trying to make it sound like this is a great law for you but in the US would be totally different. You have failed to show anything that would support that conclusion other than just misunderstanding how it works.

You are trying to draw a distinction that simply does not exist.

 

So, if your system is the same as here, as yous are now alluding to, and the 3 tiers are there for protection against bad or immoral laws then I back this law completely as I originally stated. If it is a separate entity, just like here, I again back it completely. Just so you're sure how I feel. I have faith in OUR justice system. You made me believe (whether true or not) that the same people that make the laws also dole out the punishment which is why I said I would not support that system. Point made yet?

 

What are you talking about?

You've made a point alright, but I'm thinking it is not the one you were aiming for.

 

What do you think the motivation behind calling a dead girl a cunt to her parents was? It's plain to me what his motivation was, as it is to you, whether you want to admit it or not.

If the emotional suffering was due to someone harassing him using that image, say by posting it through his door every day, then that would rightly be illegal. Again, what part of this are you having difficulty grasping? I don't know how more simply i can explain it. Are you just pretending to not understand because it gives you an angle to come at this from?

That's some twisted notion of free speech you have there. It shouldn't be illegal but it should be something that is prevented through mob violence?

I guess you might not agree with what he says, but you'll kick his ass if he exercises his right to say it. That's some free speech.

You also ignored my earlier point that we only know who he is because of the states intervention.

I'm also getting tired of this slippery slope fallacy, your position seems to rely entirely on the fabricated notion that if we stop some dickhead calling a dead girl a cunt to her parents you'll later not be allowed to criticise the government. If your argument doesn't stand without fears of an imaginary future scenario then it doesn't stand at all.

 

Whilst I happily admit I know nothing of your justice system and accepted your twisted version of it, the point I can see I must have made is that either you have to lie and twist reality to make a valid case, or be condescending and patronising towards people who fall into your trap. It seems you believe one of them should work if truth or justice won't. Heck, most of you don't see the need for truth or justice any more it seems.

Well said, as usual, though surely lost on these people. Their world is based on cynicism.

 

Re-read the quote stox. The recommended punishment was "naming and shaming". The statement "everyone that's spoken thinks he should have his rear kicked" was meant to indicate everyone here disapproved of his action... And to support that point note that I went on to add we only disagreed on who should punish him and *how*.

My post did not call for brutalizing the punk, it called for public scorn. That should be clear on re-visiting the post.

 

Yeah, you were really confused by that US government website. They sure are out to give you a twisted version.

Was there something else besides the .gov website itself that confused you so much? You are really making quite a fool of yourself.

p.s. I am not posting for your benefit anymore, that seems to be a lost cause. But at least the others reading this thread can understand you do not have a clue about the way the law works in your own country or in mine.

 

The big difference between you and me is I know I'm a nutter whereas you don't know you are too, yet.

 

I said he should be sued civilly.

And yes, personally, I think he deserves an ass kicking, but I specifically said that is not a punishment I would endorse. I said he should be sued for intentional infliction of emotion distress.

The distinction I am making is that it should be a civil penalty between the affected parties and does not need the state to criminally punish him. I think it is foolish to give the state authority to criminally punish people for insulting other people. You do realize that is the thrust of this whole thread - whether or not CRIMINAL versus some other sanction should apply.

 

This is the second time I've seen you wrap up a debate with this "I know I'm a nut", or what I call the "Please don't kick a cripple" line of defense. What I don't get is, if you are being shown facts in black in white that leave you no place to go in your debate, why not just accept them and admit you were in error? It doesn't make you a smaller person, and it handily improves your knowledge for the next debate. It also leaves your opponent no place left to go, unless they want to seem like an assh*le.

Standing on an indefensible position and saying, "Well I know I'm crazy but you lie(even though I cant prove it)" seems like insanity that will forever stagnate your educational progress. Just my 2 cents.

Worthy of noting the burden of proof in a civil claim is a lot lower, which is why O.J. was found guilty by a civil court after being acquitted by a criminal court.

What you are talking about is Harassment, and yes, we have a variety of laws against that. Always educational to do the lookup on this stuff, so here is what I found.

Note the "Credible Threat to Safety" requirement. I decided to lookup how our most liberal states define harassment, and what do you know, I found Stox's ideology has found its way into some state law.

A wonderful example of how a legislative body can create a law that is unconstitutional. This one is just begging for a supreme court challenge. This is the type of corrosive crap is at the core of what destroys a free society.

 

From above you may notice I admitted I was wrong. Then it turned into shit because I was stupid enough to reply to a troll. I think we're all nuts, not just me though I'm the only one that admits it. I'm one voice of many, just like you. I believed them, and I shouldn't have. I was wrong. Happy?

 

Happy? Not really. A wise man once told me happiness can be calculated mathematically by dividing reality by expectations. Considering you can't convince a man against his will, my expectations should be really low. You could improve my happiness ratio a bit by providing an indication you learned something, instead of the usual cop out of, "I was wrong but you are a liar". Then again, if liberals learned anything at all from history, they wouldn't be liberals. So carry on, I'm happy. Thanks for asking.

 

So you want the state to identify him then hand him over to the mob? Again, we only know who he is because the police handled the matter, and again, you have a particularly twisted view of free speech. The idea that you defend his right to say something, so long as you are told who he is and can enact your own specific form of punishment with a view to preventing it.

Did you not recommend him having his "behind kicked"?

Maybe we have different opinions of what a "petty annoyance" is, but to me it doesn't include calling a dead girl a cunt to her grieving parents. I'd agree a petty annoyance shouldn't be punishable by a prison sentence, but what he done wasn't a petty annoyance, it was a deliberate and sinister attack on grieving parent specifically to cause them suffering.

 

Oh please. Your style of argumentation causes ME suffering. Call the cops. One man's petty annoyance is clearly another (girly) man's emotional distress. If it hurts that bad, file suit. Just quit asking the cops to arrest everyone who says something that hurts your delicate sensibilities.

I once sued a guy over a business transaction gone bad(he told me to piss off after failing to deliver goods on payment). He lost in court, but refused to pay. I got quietly got ahold of his banking information and found out he didn't have the money to pay. I monitored his bank account for 9 months until he had the full amount saved up(10 days before Christmas). I filed my the subpoena, froze his accounts, and claimed my funds. Its amazing how gratifying a victory in civil court can sometimes be. Makes up for a whole lot of emotional distress.

 

Nope, still didn't. Were you expecting a different answer than I gave you a few posts up?

I made no mention of a mob, I said "name and shame" him. But as you're worried about his safety, let's compare:

My Way:
​

-1- -- He's on the streets, where everyone there knows what a heinous bastard he is.

​

Your Way:​

-1- -- He's in the jail, where everyone there knows what a heinous bastard he is... AND he's locked in with them.​

(18 days later)​

-2- -- He's on the streets, where everyone there knows what a heinous bastard he is.

​

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: (50 points each)​

1) Doesn't your step 2 looks remarkably like my step 1?​

2) Does something magical happen in 18 days that renders "the mob" you projected harmless?​

EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: (25 points) Do you think these things thru, or just sorta randomly type stuff?​

NOTE: When you're done please remain at your desk quietly while the rest of the room finishes up. You may begin. ​

​

 

The difference is that wasn't my intention, it's the result of you being a precious little princess. I'm not responsible for your fragilities. If i were to shout obscenities through your letter box i would be though. See the difference? Or are you all going to pretend the difference doesn't exist?

This is brilliant Rob, you're now arguing against prison sentences where the offender is ultimately released on the grounds that after they're released it's similar to before they were imprisoned. Do you actually know what your position is or are you just trying to find something that i'll agree with? You aren't very good at this. Tell me, what would you do if i was screaming obscenities directly in to your childs face all day? Think about it, because you're inevitably going to have to admit to not possessing the character and opinions you've been espousing for the last 2 days or admit to being a shit dad.