Much like the over-abundance of suspended sentences for first time offenders in Australia - including manslaughter, as you'd be more than aware  - if the Legal system is handling out "justice" that can never be obtained, then how can justice be said to have been dealt?

The mother in my original post can never and will never pay the amount of money the Court has deemed to be justified.  If that amount is considered to be justice, how can justice be obtained if it can never be paid?  Bernie Madoff can never serve the required amount of time.  He'll die in Prison long before he's served even half of his sentence.  The judge didn't sentence him to death - they sentenced him to jail time, however the severity of such amounting to a death sentence.  This isn't justice.

Justice isn't about "making sure no one commits crime", because this is impossible.  The fact that Death Row inmates exist show that Death Sentences are not something that discourages the crimes that they're handed down on; making more people pay for crimes with their lives will do nothing more than kill more people rather than rehabilitate them. 
Also, just so you know, it's more expensive to kill someone than to allow them to live - the cost of the appeals system, including court time, coupled with the years that they're housed in specalised wings of their Prisons amounts to more than the cost of keeping them in general population.

Justice is about balance.  Ruining a woman's life, her children's lives - or at least a good portion of them, pissing off all the people who've read about the story and - I can promise - encouraging piracy as a means of fighting back against "the man", and promoting a lop-sided legal system is not balance; it is a perversion of the law.  Why does the RIAA's rights to songs they didn't create exceed those of the woman and her children?

It's not a case of whose rights exceed whose. The law needs to set a punishment based on 3 principles. Firstly, something proportional to the breach of law. Secondly, something that may serve as a deterrent to a reasonable degree. Thirdly, something that remunerates a loss where applicable and practicable, with time served in the case of a crime of severity committed where remuneration is not within the means of the offender.

There are of course special circumstances where there are burdens on the state resultant from normal sentencing. The thing to note though is that justice is not the goal here. The goal is civil order by any means necessary. In some cases this means declaring a military state, in even more extreme cases it means a revolution.

Common sense, and the sense of justice and fairness will often slip through the cracks in the system, and corruption is rife. It's bleak but true. Who was it that defined Justice as 'a ruling in my favour.'?

ZehDon....'life' in prison is not a death sentence, it's life in prison.

You may die whilst incarcerated but that in itself is NOT a death sentence.

You 'could' get 24 hours in a cell for D&D and turn up your toes from a heart attack....that too is not a death sentence...it's 'death in custody', which, as you know, only happens to Aboriginals...[but that's a whole, different issue]...;)

As to who defined Justice as 'a ruling in my favour' it was probably the same bloke who said 'any landing you walk away from is a good landing'...;)

As for 'military state'.... in Oz we've managed to [still] survive with only ONE 'reading of the Riot Act' on Australian soil.

Not bad for a bunch of convicts...;)

Ugh, I can't believe I actually read this whole thread...

Seriously. There is no "justice" in this sentence. Period. Anybody who says that this woman "deserves" this ruling is an idiot. (sorry, Jafo)

This is not a discussion about murder, or about whether or not this woman is actually guilty or not guilty. The problem is that a court cannot rule based on an alleged crime. There is no way to prove that this woman distributed any of the songs that she downloaded. Because there is no way to prove that, she cannot be found guilty for that crime.

What she CAN be found guilty of, is the songs that she was proven to have downloaded. (i.e. stolen). According to the news article, that is 24. The average price for each song would be around $1... give or take. Therefore, the damages to the record labels would be... DUN DUN DUN. And whopping $24... give or take.

Jafo... you have been contradicting yourself. You say "an eye for an eye". Well, that may be... but if you honestly believe that, then you must also believe that if she stole $24... she should have to pay $24. That's an eye for an eye...

The amount she has been ordered to pay... is no more justified than a homeless man being sentenced to death for spitting on someone's shoes.

 

A Pirate's Opinion:

Pirate =   Record Label =  

 

A Record Company's Opinion:

 

Pirate =   Record Label =

 

MY Opinion...

 

Pirate =   Record Label =

Fail to put 20c in the parking meter and you don't get a 20c fine.

Things just don't work that way....never have, never will.

Again, as I also said before....typical penalties for IP theft still relate to pre-ease-of-Internet-crime days when the type of 'theft' was more business than individual... so the penalties would relate to commercial infringement more so than some backyard twit.

The Law/Legal system is too clumsy and archaic to keep up with the world it is supposed to service, that is all.

Oh my, there sure are a bunch of 'idoits' everwhere you turn.  How are we ever to know who is right? 

Don't forget, this isn't Iran, where they cut off your hand for stealing. Oh wait.... It's America, the land of draconian punishments, the #3 committer of capital punishments in the world -- no surprises here, really. I suppose she could sell her children into servitude, there is probably some clause in Californian law somewhere by which the children have to pay the debts of their destitute parents, why not? Ah, America, land of the free....

If you know of a better place then you're "free" to go. You might prefer Cuba or North Korea.

+6

 

 

You don't get a $62,000 fine, either.

I didn't say I think she deserved to only pay $24. But in a "perfect" "crime deserves equal retribution" world... that's how it would be. 1.5 mil is a pretty big number for the theft of a couple cds. Which is what this basically was. She's being crucified for shoplifting.

I don't remember seeing anyone say that this woman was innocent of committing a crime. But no sane person could possibly see the punishment as a just reward.

Someone out there has to grab a brain, clue, It's insane.  

[example: pedophile gets probation] Say no more.

(Political/social observation): We can't - we can only seem to flip-flop between faeries/unicorns and duct tape/firecrackers.

Ah, you mean like half the EU countries?

By all means....I notice people are just lining up to emigrate from the US to the EU.

Which is a REAL punishment. Death is not a punishment. Martyrs see it as a reward. i.e. Christ was executed and was rewarded by god. All any prisoner has to do to get the same is ask for forgiveness of all of their sins and accept Jesus and they get into heaven with a clean slate..........

We're all under a death sentence. Some sooner than others....

Which also irrelevant to the discussion.

It should sound familiar....

Where would you go? You're surrounded by water..... The island can easily be made back into a prison again.

 

Try Canada......

 

Like they're doing a cross the Mexican border heading back south in higher numbers? In other words they are growing numbers of people headed back south than are heading North.

Ah, now reply #140 classifies as 'trolling'.

In spite of attempts by some, I quite liked Canada...did the Red Leaf, etc 12 months ago.

I actually liked New York more...but that's because I'm an Architect. - I also liked Venice [1973] and you can't get two places more diverse.

Now THAT is 'irrelevant to the discussion'....;p

Double standard. Since I never said anything about trolling. What you're doing now is called flaming in order to start an argument, yet again. A perk of your position it appears.

It certainly is true, but that's nothing new for you to be honest.

 

Imagine dying in prison alone and forgotten? That would be a terrible fate to be avoided at all costs. And it so happens that it is and does work.

not sure where you got your facts....they are leaving Arizona, but I don't buy into them going south (although it's certainly acceptable if they do)....and they certainly aren't leaving Florida....yet

ZehDon...re #126 [IE9 doesn't like the quote function here]... last figures I heard was incarceration cost around 200 thou...per annum, per person.

That includes the entire 'industry' of the Penal system from..court to cellblock.

Even IF death-row [non-GP] inmates were more expensive PA their stay is finite.

It "should" also be short.  It "could" be quite a lot less. [cost].

Remember...if you do costing properly you'll find that the idea of free public transport is LESS of a burden on society/tax payers than non-free.  You NEED to factor in projected reduction of road trauma due to 'less' road use.  Trouble is...no Govt. has the balls to introduce it...probably too many commercial 'interests' in NOT doing so.

How about the elderly or disabled? They cost society much without any hope of recouping. Do you euthanize them all? It would certainly allow you to get rid of me in that I'm seriously physically disabled.  Thalidomide. I look forward to death. Things haven't gotten "to the point of no return" yet, but soon.

 

Did you know that America's infrastructure is deemed to be around 70% unsafe? All those tax cuts had to be paid for somehow.....

 

'euthanase'  JAFOCHECK ...no, why must everything be taken to an illogical extreme?  I mention free transport as an economic plus and you somehow extrapolate that to culling the infirm?

The reference to public transport costing was in response to ZehDon's concerns that capital punishment cost the tax payer more than incarceration alone....and directed specifically TO him for consideration, hence the mention of his name.

 

Interesting statement. How do you quantify safe? What is the infrastructure difference between 70% unsafe and 50% safe?

Frankly, that sounds like a education industry scientist statement meant to justify next years grant(s) Or more likely an excerpt from a hollywierd documentary producer's sensationalist advertisment.

 

I'm a civil engineer so I'm aware that there are cases of aging infrastructure and it's possible to say quantify the number of bridges which require attention but I don't know how to quantify "safe"

 

of course.... 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot....