EPT20 Years for a Youtube Prank? - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Simberto
Germany12072 Posts
| ||
|
RosaParksStoleMySeat
Japan926 Posts
| ||
|
W2
United States1177 Posts
On February 19 2011 15:57 Mellotron wrote: 20 years is too much. And this is coming from someone who hates this guy. Not because what he did is "wrong". Its just ridiculously unfunny and a complete and total modern cliche to try to shock with this kind of humor to get hits on fooltube. What he did wasnt an act against morality, its an act against hilarity. I say give him a couple years probation, but forbid him to tell any jokes or make any youtube vids for 20 years for having dog crap sense of humor. Or how about this, have him remake a different youtube vid. And in this one hes not allowed to use any shock value or sex appeal, or anything like that. Force him to actually BE witty and do something genuinely ironic or full of crystal clear talent, no gimmicks. If he accomplishes it, then he goes free. If he cant (because he cant), he goes to jail. If the justice system is going to be unfair and random, lets at least use it to prove various interesting points about humanity. LOL I love your way of thinking. Achieve 1mill youtube hits or else fine/jailtime. Hahaha, the shame would be punishment enough. | ||
|
treekiller
United States236 Posts
It that episode he made it appear that he was in a playground with child while he was naked. Showing childred your dong is arguably worse than singing about sex that they way or may not understand. So logically, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. This may be in different states, but the principle is the same. | ||
|
Kazius
Israel1456 Posts
On February 19 2011 17:14 treekiller wrote: anyone see the most recent tosh.0? It that episode he made it appear that he was in a playground with child while he was naked. Showing childred your dong is arguably worse than singing about sex that they way or may not understand. So logically, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. This may be in different states, but the principle is the same. Actually, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. He ruins a show with being unfunny. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On February 19 2011 17:17 Kazius wrote: Actually, Daniel Tosh should be thrown in jail for his comedy routine. He ruins a show with being unfunny. You should be thrown in jail for not having a sense of humor. Tosh is awesome. | ||
|
Kazius
Israel1456 Posts
On February 19 2011 17:19 Jswizzy wrote: You should be thrown in jail for not having a sense of humor. Tosh is awesome. On a scale of comedians, he ranks somewhere between Sara Silverman and Yucko the Clown. | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
| ||
|
bebejugga
United States43 Posts
| ||
|
anka
46 Posts
"The goat was horrified when he saw something that obviosly aimed to be a pseudo-childpornographic, he was so chocked that he called the internetpolice" | ||
|
Brett
Australia3823 Posts
On February 19 2011 16:37 Simberto wrote: Because here in europe, people get charged with something remotely similar to what they will receive if found guilty usually. Or, i actually thing that they do not get charged with a specific amount of years beforehand, but after the trial the prosecutor says "I think he is guilty and get 12 years", and the defender say something like "Ok, he is guilty, but it is not that bad, he should get 5 years", and then actual penalty is something in between. I am no expert in the legal system, but it works something like that. So when they say someone is charged with 20 years, we expect that if they are found guilty, they will get something in that general ballpark as a sentence. And not some hours of community service, or something like that. Because if the crime actually deserves only that much punishment, why did they not simply charge them with that to begin with? If someone is charged with 20 years, we think that the prosecutor thinks that that is what they should get. Let me explain it to you (I am a practising criminal lawyer with 4 years experience post admission). A single criminal charge is composed of certain elements. When these elements are all present a charge is proven. These elements are more often than not quite general so as to 'catch' numerous acts which a person may perform. This is done to limit the amount of offences it is necessary to create. Accordingly, the vast majority of criminal offences are able to be proven despite various differences in the acts committed by a person. Eg. a charge of "theft" can be proven where a person with no job or home steals a toothbrush in a shop, and it can be proven where a gainfully employed person breaks into a house and steals a million dollar painting for the purpose of adding it to their collection. As you can see no doubt see in the two examples, there is a variance in the seriousness of the offence. In order for a sentencing body to be able exercise its discretion in attributing an appropriate penalty to these two examples of "theft", the criminal law prescribes a maximum penalty to that offence of theft. Here in Australia, the maximum penalty for a single charge of theft is 10 years imprisonment. Now, OBVIOUSLY, my client who is charged with stealing a toothbrush because he has no money, absent any other factors, is not going to be sent to gaol for 10 years... The law also understands that some people will have varying antecedents. Some people will present on a charge of theft for the first time in their life... others may be career criminals facing their 12th theft charge. The prescription of a maximum penalty further allows the sentencing body to recognise the previous character of the offender. Thus if two people steal a toothbrush because they are homeless and jobless, yet Offender A is there in Court for the first time, whilst the Offender B is there for the 6th time for such a charge... The penalties will vary: A) might get a good behaviour bond, B might be facing an immediate term of imprisonment. There are numerous other sentencing considerations to be thrown into the mix before a penalty is ever imposed, but I will not go into those here; no doubt you get my point. That is why these sorts of articles are stupid. They sensationalise it by saying "20 years!" when there is absolutely no chance of that ever occuring. Thus my comments that the preceding 15 pages of rage at him facing a 20 year sentence are slightly misplaced... | ||
|
Casta
Denmark234 Posts
How about the impact it could have on that young man giving him 20 years in prison? What a fucking joke. | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
Yeah, the guy was arraigned and charged with a felony that carries a penalty of up to 20 years. That does not mean, in any way shape or form, that he'll be convicted of that felony and sentenced to 20 years in jail. My mind would be blown if that were to happen. I've seen people get arrested on attempted murder charges, arraigned on manslaughter charges, plead guilty to an assault charge, and end up serving no time. There's very little connection between arraignments and punishment when it comes to felonies. What will probably happen is that his lawyer and the DA's office will come to some sort of resolution that's agreeable to the parents of the children (who were victimized by being portrayed in that song) and to this guy's lawyer. It might involve a little jail time - he did make a pretty horrendously stupid and ignorant decision that caused a lot of people a lot of mental distress - but he's not going to get 20 years, not even close. Really guys, the vitriol being dumped on the DA's office here is pretty unfounded. Parents are upset - they're seeing their children depicted in an obscene manner. These are real people with real grievances, who've been put into serious distress. The DA's office is absolutely right to charge him with a serious felony - it shows that the office takes their concerns seriously and will respond to them accordingly. You might feel differently if it was a picture of your little girl smiling and laughing as a guy sings about pedophilia and the video was up on youtube for the world to see. Really, the DA's office can always bring new charges, or reduce the charges pending additional facts or new developments. These decisions are always made on a very tight timetable - they arrested him and had to arraign him within 24 hours, so they decided to play it safe and charge him with a serious crime that shows they listen to the parents in their community. They can go pretty much anywhere from here - more serious or less serious - but the charges that are presented to you at arraignments rarely bear more than a resemblance to what you'll see at sentencing. Lastly, I'll admit that I'm an ADA myself, for what that's worth - whether you think that makes my opinion more valuable or more biased is for you to decide. | ||
|
MrRicewife
Canada515 Posts
Judges aren't stupid, whomever is the judge will not stick a kid in jail for 20 years for this crap, he will not even step foot in jail. What sucks is maybe he will get probation and a criminal record, which sticks to you for life - career wise. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On February 19 2011 09:48 ggrrg wrote: Invasion of privacy: "1) intrusion on one's solitude or into one's private affairs; 2) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; 3) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; 4) appropriation of one's name or picture for personal or commercial advantage." 1) I'd say that children being at school is not exactly a "private affair" or "intrusion of solitude" 2) children being at school doesn't fall under "embarrassing private information" either 3) somewhat debatable, but considering there was a disclaimer explaining that the video is staged should rule this out, too (you know, like the disclaimers they put in tv shows e.g. "all characters and events in this show - even those based on real people - are entirely fictional"). Not to mention that anybody with a semi-functional brain would realize that the kids were most certainly not dancing to offensive lyrics even without reading the disclaimer... 4) now, that's a point he can be sued over, but it most certainly doesn't warrant a 20-years sentence or any jail time for that matter destruction of reputations!? Whose? The children's? Or maybe the teachers'? Or the principal's? The video doesn't claim that any of the officials were involved in creating or approved of the material, and in addition there was a disclaimer that actually says the exact opposite. A case (a stupid one but nevertheless) could be made that the video could be interpreted in an unfavorable way for some officials, but this doesn't warrant a prison sentence. Furthermore, neither "invasion of privacy" nor "destruction of reputations" is why everybody in this thread feels the urge to face palm. The reasons is that some crazy prosecutor somehow came to the idea to file a sexual abuse charge! p.s. Astonishing how you can even dare to compare a disclosed internet joke with a life-endangering, possibly life-claiming, property destroying crime like arson. Actually this sort of thing could be very damaging to a teacher's reputation- maybe not a veteran, but definitely a new teacher. Whatever happens in the classroom is the teacher's responsibility and the fact that this jokester got in and out of the class with video footage for a less than reputable purpose would definitely show a new teacher in poor light to administration, parents, and board members. (Serious misjudge of character on who the teacher is bringing into the class as guests.) Probably not enough to get a teacher fired, but definitely enough to get some unfavourable attention early in a teacher's career. There's also the matter of- did he get permission to film the children in the first place? If he did, it is better for him- except that he then lied about his purpose and didn't really have permission. If he didn't he was publishing footage of children which is taken very seriously at least in BC. If only because some parents are in hiding from the non-custodial parent/ abusive partner and don't want the child's location to be found. People ask what did he do wrong? It's just a prank. Yes, it's a prank, a prank involving children where there's a lot of momma bears. Seriously, try filming children with the intention of broadcasting without permission or performing any sort of research for the purpose for publishing. People are really protective of their children. Can you blame them? I do think he was in the wrong. Not 20 year sentence in the wrong. Not sex-offender wrong. But definitely wrong and very dumb. | ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On February 19 2011 17:46 Brett wrote: Let me explain it to you (I am a practising criminal lawyer with 4 years experience post admission). A single criminal charge is composed of certain elements. When these elements are all present a charge is proven. These elements are more often than not quite general so as to 'catch' numerous acts which a person may perform. This is done to limit the amount of offences it is necessary to create. Accordingly, the vast majority of criminal offences are able to be proven despite various differences in the acts committed by a person. Eg. a charge of "theft" can be proven where a person with no job or home steals a toothbrush in a shop, and it can be proven where a gainfully employed person breaks into a house and steals a million dollar painting for the purpose of adding it to their collection. As you can see no doubt see in the two examples, there is a variance in the seriousness of the offence. In order for a sentencing body to be able exercise its discretion in attributing an appropriate penalty to these two examples of "theft", the criminal law prescribes a maximum penalty to that offence of theft. Here in Australia, the maximum penalty for a single charge of theft is 10 years imprisonment. Now, OBVIOUSLY, my client who is charged with stealing a toothbrush because he has no money, absent any other factors, is not going to be sent to gaol for 10 years... The law also understands that some people will have varying antecedents. Some people will present on a charge of theft for the first time in their life... others may be career criminals facing their 12th theft charge. The prescription of a maximum penalty further allows the sentencing body to recognise the previous character of the offender. Thus if two people steal a toothbrush because they are homeless and jobless, yet Offender A is there in Court for the first time, whilst the Offender B is there for the 6th time for such a charge... The penalties will vary: A) might get a good behaviour bond, B might be facing an immediate term of imprisonment. There are numerous other sentencing considerations to be thrown into the mix before a penalty is ever imposed, but I will not go into those here; no doubt you get my point. That is why these sorts of articles are stupid. They sensationalise it by saying "20 years!" when there is absolutely no chance of that ever occuring. Thus my comments that the preceding 15 pages of rage at him facing a 20 year sentence are slightly misplaced... In ways I completely agree with you but in other ways you have to look at the rediculous charge. NO, this guy is not getting a 20 year sentence for posting an edited youtube video. YES this charge is rediculous. Even if what he did had legal consequences there should be different scales to a law. Not only is the charge rediculous but the media coverage is even worse, Media and lawyers are very similar because of the general bending that happens when trying to get fame. Sadly coverage on this topic can't be black and white because that isn't received well. Another part of this is that the 20 year sentence won't really come to fruition but it makes the situation more drastic and raises the chance of a conviction (which is probably what the DA wants). The sad thing is... The problems with america only start with politicians and lawyers bending the rules, it ends with the abuse of Free speech (for and against) and mixed with entrepreneurship you get a horrible situation. | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On February 19 2011 17:57 ixi.genocide wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 19 2011 17:46 Brett wrote: Let me explain it to you (I am a practising criminal lawyer with 4 years experience post admission). A single criminal charge is composed of certain elements. When these elements are all present a charge is proven. These elements are more often than not quite general so as to 'catch' numerous acts which a person may perform. This is done to limit the amount of offences it is necessary to create. Accordingly, the vast majority of criminal offences are able to be proven despite various differences in the acts committed by a person. Eg. a charge of "theft" can be proven where a person with no job or home steals a toothbrush in a shop, and it can be proven where a gainfully employed person breaks into a house and steals a million dollar painting for the purpose of adding it to their collection. As you can see no doubt see in the two examples, there is a variance in the seriousness of the offence. In order for a sentencing body to be able exercise its discretion in attributing an appropriate penalty to these two examples of "theft", the criminal law prescribes a maximum penalty to that offence of theft. Here in Australia, the maximum penalty for a single charge of theft is 10 years imprisonment. Now, OBVIOUSLY, my client who is charged with stealing a toothbrush because he has no money, absent any other factors, is not going to be sent to gaol for 10 years... The law also understands that some people will have varying antecedents. Some people will present on a charge of theft for the first time in their life... others may be career criminals facing their 12th theft charge. The prescription of a maximum penalty further allows the sentencing body to recognise the previous character of the offender. Thus if two people steal a toothbrush because they are homeless and jobless, yet Offender A is there in Court for the first time, whilst the Offender B is there for the 6th time for such a charge... The penalties will vary: A) might get a good behaviour bond, B might be facing an immediate term of imprisonment. There are numerous other sentencing considerations to be thrown into the mix before a penalty is ever imposed, but I will not go into those here; no doubt you get my point. That is why these sorts of articles are stupid. They sensationalise it by saying "20 years!" when there is absolutely no chance of that ever occuring. Thus my comments that the preceding 15 pages of rage at him facing a 20 year sentence are slightly misplaced... In ways I completely agree with you but in other ways you have to look at the rediculous charge. NO, this guy is not getting a 20 year sentence for posting an edited youtube video. YES this charge is rediculous. Even if what he did had legal consequences there should be different scales to a law. Not only is the charge rediculous but the media coverage is even worse, Media and lawyers are very similar because of the general bending that happens when trying to get fame. Sadly coverage on this topic can't be black and white because that isn't received well. Another part of this is that the 20 year sentence won't really come to fruition but it makes the situation more drastic and raises the chance of a conviction (which is probably what the DA wants). The sad thing is... The problems with america only start with politicians and lawyers bending the rules, it ends with the abuse of Free speech (for and against) and mixed with entrepreneurship you get a horrible situation. The DA's office does not "want" a conviction per se. They want justice done. That means responding to the needs of the community, the reality of the facts and applying a fair bit of empathy for the victim and the defendant. In this case, it's pretty obvious that he deserves some degree of punishment, so yes, the office does "want" a conviction, but I can't possibly imagine anyone really expecting this guy to face 20 years. The office certainly wouldn't recommend that much at sentencing. To be quite frank, what the DA's office really wants is a deal - one that satisfies the community while serving the interests of justice and saving the public (and the DA's staff) the time and expense of a trial. And yes, the DA's office IS concerned with it's image - that's just a reality of local politics - but it's silly to call this a purely politically-motivated prosecution (I'm not accusing you of saying this, just making a rhetorical point.) He's clearly done a serious wrong - people should wait until a deal is formed or a trial is conducted before getting up on a soapbox and damning the DA's office and its conduct. EDIT: In fact, I'll add one more thing - it's not necessarily a bad thing that the DA's office is concerned with it's public image. If they genuinely feel that they're doing a good job reducing crime, shouldn't they be advertising that fact to make people feel more secure? Isn't that one of the primary goals of law enforcement - reducing the fear of crime? | ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On February 19 2011 18:05 PanzerKing wrote: The DA's office does not "want" a conviction per se. They want justice done. That means responding to the needs of the community, the reality of the facts and applying a fair bit of empathy for the victim and the defendant. In this case, it's pretty obvious that he deserves some degree of punishment, so yes, the office does "want" a conviction, but I can't possibly imagine anyone really expecting this guy to face 20 years. The office certainly wouldn't recommend that much at sentencing. To be quite frank, what the DA's office really wants is a deal - one that satisfies the community while serving the interests of justice and saving the public (and the DA's staff) the time and expense of a trial. And yes, the DA's office IS concerned with it's image - that's just a reality of local politics - but it's silly to call this a purely politically-motivated prosecution (I'm not accusing you of saying this, just making a rhetorical point.) He's clearly done a serious wrong - people should wait until a deal is formed or a trial is conducted before getting up on a soapbox and damning the DA's office and its conduct. EDIT: In fact, I'll add one more thing - it's not necessarily a bad thing that the DA's office is concerned with it's public image. If they genuinely feel that they're doing a good job reducing crime, shouldn't they be advertising that fact to make people feel more secure? Isn't that one of the primary goals of law enforcement - reducing the fear of crime? While this guy did do something that is wrong and can cause duress to the parents of the video I don't think that even proposing a sentence that has 20 years remotely tied to it is correct. While the DA does want justice it also wants a conviction rate. I grew up in Ventura, CA and the DA's pride is a 98% conviction rate (do you think 98% of people prosecuted are guilty?). No this is not purely politically motivated but because of the media coverage and the unprecedence of the crime itself makes it a political case (at least for us). It is a good thing that the DA has a positive public image, but not sacrificing justice for that image (I'm not saying that they are). I really don't have a problem with the DA or legal system with this case but really I, and others, have a problem with the severity of the charge and the manipulation that is often seen by lawyers to win a case. When it comes to the justice system there shouldn't be a "Winner" and a "Loser" there should be a "this guy is guilty/not guilty based on the facts as they are in reality, not the twisted image of facts presented by teh defense". | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On February 19 2011 18:20 ixi.genocide wrote: + Show Spoiler + On February 19 2011 18:05 PanzerKing wrote: The DA's office does not "want" a conviction per se. They want justice done. That means responding to the needs of the community, the reality of the facts and applying a fair bit of empathy for the victim and the defendant. In this case, it's pretty obvious that he deserves some degree of punishment, so yes, the office does "want" a conviction, but I can't possibly imagine anyone really expecting this guy to face 20 years. The office certainly wouldn't recommend that much at sentencing. To be quite frank, what the DA's office really wants is a deal - one that satisfies the community while serving the interests of justice and saving the public (and the DA's staff) the time and expense of a trial. And yes, the DA's office IS concerned with it's image - that's just a reality of local politics - but it's silly to call this a purely politically-motivated prosecution (I'm not accusing you of saying this, just making a rhetorical point.) He's clearly done a serious wrong - people should wait until a deal is formed or a trial is conducted before getting up on a soapbox and damning the DA's office and its conduct. EDIT: In fact, I'll add one more thing - it's not necessarily a bad thing that the DA's office is concerned with it's public image. If they genuinely feel that they're doing a good job reducing crime, shouldn't they be advertising that fact to make people feel more secure? Isn't that one of the primary goals of law enforcement - reducing the fear of crime? While this guy did do something that is wrong and can cause duress to the parents of the video I don't think that even proposing a sentence that has 20 years remotely tied to it is correct. While the DA does want justice it also wants a conviction rate. I grew up in Ventura, CA and the DA's pride is a 98% conviction rate (do you think 98% of people prosecuted are guilty?). No this is not purely politically motivated but because of the media coverage and the unprecedence of the crime itself makes it a political case (at least for us). It is a good thing that the DA has a positive public image, but not sacrificing justice for that image (I'm not saying that they are). I really don't have a problem with the DA or legal system with this case but really I, and others, have a problem with the severity of the charge and the manipulation that is often seen by lawyers to win a case. When it comes to the justice system there shouldn't be a "Winner" and a "Loser" there should be a "this guy is guilty/not guilty based on the facts as they are in reality, not the twisted image of facts presented by teh defense". To be honest, yes, at least 98% of the people who are charged with crimes are guilty of something. I arraigned over a hundred guys today (9 hours in criminal court ugh), and they were pretty much all guilty. One or two were charged with a crime which we couldn't make out in court, so a couple charges could have been dropped, but they pled out to a lesser offense anyways. There were a couple crackheads who might not have been in possession at the time, strictly speaking, but they're crackheads. If they weren't in possession at that exact moment, then they were beforehand or afterwards - they're crackheads, it's what they DO. So it's not really fair to say "well it's bullshit to charge him with X when they can't win on X at trial" because this happens ALL THE TIME. If we only charged on what we could win at trial, there would be a lot less prosecutions. That doesn't mean that those guys aren't guilty, and shouldn't be prosecuted in the first place. We might be only able to prove their guilt to a 99.8% degree of certainty. But I can say that, if I had serious reservations about a defendant's guilt, nobody in my office would ever ask me to push a jail-time case forward. I mean, I've prosecuted guys in bullshit cases, but if the case is really bullshit then they get time served or an ACD or a treatment program, not jail time. People are NOT getting railroaded into jail-time on shitty cases. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
Imagine him in the felony prison, and his cell mates goes all like "ey, I kidnapped 43 boys in my van, had my way with them and murdered them. What did you do to get here?" "I made a fake youtube video of me singing a dirty song to children." Man, this is so wrong :p | ||
| ||
