EPTMeanwhile people post things saying he deserves it without understanding the way the criminal justice system works and the effects it has on those who enter it. This man won't get any help and sending him to prison is only going to cause more problems. He needs psychological treatment and help to overcome addiction and learn how to cope with his aspergers syndrome so that he can move on with his life, become productive and never do this kind of thing again.
Facebook troll jailed - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
Meanwhile people post things saying he deserves it without understanding the way the criminal justice system works and the effects it has on those who enter it. This man won't get any help and sending him to prison is only going to cause more problems. He needs psychological treatment and help to overcome addiction and learn how to cope with his aspergers syndrome so that he can move on with his life, become productive and never do this kind of thing again. | ||
|
HereticSaint
United States240 Posts
On September 15 2011 02:23 AlBundy wrote: Yes this is reasonable because this is what prisons are for. I'm asking you, why is there overpopulation, promiscuity, violence, etc.? This is all done on purpose. They don't want convicts to have a good time in jail. It's pretty much common knowledge that prisons are made to punish people, to destroy them, not to help them. There's a reason why prisons have a bad reputation and why people would do anything NOT to go there. What the ****? So you know exactly how prisons work and that there's a good chance it will destroy him, potentially he may wind up dead and probably get raped and you are okay with this? Over something he said? Over what someone with Aspergers said? And the Americans pay the bill for this? What the hell....? Are you really serious, really? Screw it, just give him the death penalty. This isn't even the equivalent to capital punishment, this is like if someone murdered someone else (In a way that didn't involve torture) and you didn't just kill them, you tortured them, then killed them, then killed their whole family. | ||
|
VirgilSC2
United States6151 Posts
I really think it should be illegal to prosecute someone like that for this. My best friend has two younger brothers, both of which are autistic and yeah, sometimes they do go too far, but it's not their fault. This is just such a shame, what is wrong with people these days? | ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
On September 15 2011 01:03 Myles wrote: You don't have to monitor anything. Just like with real life harassment, when someone comes forward saying they feel they're being harassed, the police look into it and decide based on the evidence. CCTVs taking hundreds of pictures of you daily as you walk around london beg to differ that its not a police state. | ||
|
absalom86
Iceland1770 Posts
On September 14 2011 20:25 Pandemona wrote: Hope he learns, learning the hard way or not he is a social reject who likes attention plain and simple. 5 months, some people may not seem it is long enough. I am from Worcester, where the girl was from who killed herself on valentines day i beleive. I dont know the girl, but i have seen pictures and read numerous storys and heard stuff from my friends about her. To mock someone who killed themselves because of social aspects inside her school life (she was a well off girl who went to private school, but her parents had recently split up which is reason for her suicide i beleive) But to ban him from social networks for 5 years is a bit weak, if you cruel to animals your nomally banned from having them completely, let alone 5 years. Kind of stupid. Article said she was depressed from being bullied by a group of girls at her school and then being sent an offensive anonymous message the day that she took her life. | ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
On September 15 2011 01:25 Frigo wrote: Trolls who post pointless stuff on the already trash internet, whose actions has about 0 effect contrary what the families say, and whose posts and accounts can be deleted with a few clicks, face jail time and severed rights in the name of a poorly defined "anti-social" offense which conflicts with freedom of speech among other things, While ex-girlfriends stalking and harassing men (65000+ calls in one case), and women falsely accusing men of rape, causing very real distress, suffering and panic to the point of suicide among other heavy adverse effects, get no penalty, sometimes not even a slap on the wrist, not even if they continue their acts, which more than fulfill the definition of harassment. Am I the only one who finds this strange? Sure, the stuff the guy did is of bad taste, but it is blown way out of proportion, it is more of a simple banworthy offense than a court case. Jail is for criminals, not retards. Seems like authorities have too much time and money on their hands if they can pursue cases like "sending malicious communications" and "posting offensive messages". It is quite absurd if you ask me. "The offences are so serious...", "harm and damage" - YEAH SURE MR SUPERFLUOUS OFFICER or whoever you are. Welcome to the internet, enjoy your stay. I vaguely remember a case where 4chan repeatedly called the parents of a kid who committed suicide (basis of the "an hero" meme I believe), sometimes thousands of phone calls and letters. Now THAT'S fucking harassment, yet the authorities didn't even lift a finger. obviously because there were too many and it was generalized. if there was a leader they could go after, someone who clearly led if the harassment, they could. As it was 1000's of people, they just don't have the manpower, and what are you going to do? Send 10000 police out to canvas the world for them? | ||
|
Ryka
United Kingdom254 Posts
On September 15 2011 00:54 Holgerius wrote: He was persecuted under the Malicious Communications Act. I'm English and I've never heard of this. If I call you some nasty words on facebook could I be potentially sent to prison? I don't get it, where's the line and what does the law actually say? | ||
|
Rice
United States1332 Posts
On September 15 2011 02:43 VirgilSC2 wrote: Wow, he has aspergers, it's a form of AUTISM, which is a SOCIAL DISORDER. I really think it should be illegal to prosecute someone like that for this. My best friend has two younger brothers, both of which are autistic and yeah, sometimes they do go too far, but it's not their fault. This is just such a shame, what is wrong with people these days? lmao, people with aspergers shouldn't be out of the boundaries of the law. a person with aspergers still understands morality. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On September 15 2011 03:06 Ryka wrote: I'm English and I've never heard of this. If I call you some nasty words on facebook could I be potentially sent to prison? I don't get it, where's the line and what does the law actually say? If you cause distress or anxiety with those words. Just because you dumb down a law to something simple doesn't mean its silly or dumb. Inform yourself. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1 There are implications to what your words do and it all depends on the effect or intent to cause with them. | ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
| ||
|
HereticSaint
United States240 Posts
On September 15 2011 03:09 Rice wrote: lmao, people with aspergers shouldn't be out of the boundaries of the law. a person with aspergers still understands morality. Jail will clearly help him! | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 15 2011 02:02 HereticSaint wrote: Maybe they don't have their funding split in such a mundane way, that doesn't change the fact that if any funding that could otherwise go to another one of these issues goes towards this that it's a negligent misuse of funding. I'm not saying I'm in a position to do so or ever will be, but if I were ever in the position to redirect more funding towards the police departments, run fundraisers for them or otherwise donate towards them I wouldn't if I knew they were using part of this funding on such matters. I'm sorry, everyone is talking about how serious this is, come the **** on guys, really? A lot of you have been on the internet just as long as I have, I'm not saying that because it's the internet it's okay, but just take five minutes intentionally searching for shit that's intended to actually hurt people and you'll find thousands of hits for stuff that is just as bad, if not worse. I don't see this being worth the cost of investigating, prosecuting and using up jail space (as well as all the associated costs there) for. At least not until other methods of stopping it have been used up, such as banning/IP banning, if they are circumventing these, then maybe, but from everything I've seen it's not like he was hiding behind proxies or making multiple accounts and changing his IP address. Hardly a relevant argument. You could say that about anything you disagree with. Cool, that doesn't change the fact that harassment is a serious crime. There's nothing negligent whatsoever about this, as I already stated, the police department doesn't deal with crimes in the order they were reported, but rather the severity of the crime. Something like this would never detract from resources spent investigating rapes, murders, etc. All I see is you saying that harassment, especially in the case of causing extreme anguish, isn't a big deal. I see no reason to distinguish between internet vs phone vs in person. EDIT: I hope we're just arguing about the validity of the investigation, etc. and not whether or not the punishment is appropriate. I'm not saying jail time is the best solution, but I do think he should be prosecuted and at minimum fined. | ||
|
HereticSaint
United States240 Posts
On September 15 2011 03:16 FabledIntegral wrote: Hardly a relevant argument. You could say that about anything you disagree with. Cool, that doesn't change the fact that harassment is a serious crime. There's nothing negligent whatsoever about this, as I already stated, the police department doesn't deal with crimes in the order they were reported, but rather the severity of the crime. Something like this would never detract from resources spent investigating rapes, murders, etc. All I see is you saying that harassment, especially in the case of causing extreme anguish, isn't a big deal. I see no reason to distinguish between internet vs phone vs in person. I don't distinguish between them. If I call your dead mother all sorts of nasty names and then say I hope you die, I shouldn't go to jail for it whether I say it in real life or on the internet. That's stupid. Furthermore you say it isn't detracting from other areas, but at the same time it would increase the national debt. We don't have unlimited funds, any funds they save not looking into these cases, at least all but the most severe ones (AKA: The ones who actually circumvent IP bans/etc) is more money they have the next quarter or whatever that they don't need to borrow towards. Edit: Of course Jail time isn't the best solution, it isn't even a solution, if anything he's going to be worse off psychologically when he gets out. I know if I said some random bs on the internet and ended up getting sent to jail and raped for it that if anything I'd be more likely to do not only that but even more messed up shit. Bottom line is of course opinion just like yours but: I don't believe this is anymore an issue than saying shit to people in real life which as long as you aren't invading their property, constantly screaming it, staying on another persons property against their will (such as like at a restaurant, etc) then it's a non-issue. Then whether you want to look at it as an issue or not, we don't have unlimited funds, if we start pursuing these at some point there's going to be more borrowing which means more debt. (Unless things take a 180 degree turn) | ||
|
Divergence
Canada363 Posts
The court heard that Duffy has Asperger's syndrome and lived a "miserable existence" drinking alcohol alone at his home in Reading. Well this isn't too uncommon a thing to read on internet forums, is it? Let's just say there's a lot of people on 4chan who fit that description (and maybe even some people here :p). | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 15 2011 03:18 HereticSaint wrote: I don't distinguish between them. If I call your dead mother all sorts of nasty names and then say I hope you die, I shouldn't go to jail for it whether I say it in real life or on the internet. That's stupid. Furthermore you say it isn't detracting from other areas, but at the same time it would increase the national debt. We don't have unlimited funds, any funds they save not looking into these cases, at least all but the most severe ones (AKA: The ones who actually circumvent IP bans/etc) is more money they have the next quarter or whatever that they don't need to borrow towards. Edit: Of course Jail time isn't the best solution, it isn't even a solution, if anything he's going to be worse off psychologically when he gets out. I know if I said some random bs on the internet and ended up getting sent to jail and raped for it that if anything I'd be more likely to do not only that but even more messed up shit. There's a difference between merely saying something and harassment. What you're essentially saying is that harassment shouldn't be a crime. Because that is the definition of harassment. — vb ( tr ) to trouble, torment, or confuse by continual persistent attacks, questions, etc Keyword in there is persistent. If you continually told me you wanted me to die, wanted to rape my mother, etc. then I do think you should be fined and I don't think that's within your rights of free speech. If you wanted to write your own blog on why I should die, etc. that's fine. But to actively go out and harass someone is an entirely different matter. Lastly, there's an endless stream of cases. Certain ones, of less severity, would be neglected to be looked at because of these. For that exact reason, they are LESS severe. It would not cause an increase in national debt, but rather a reallocation (if you can even call it that, as it's already been happening) of resources to focus on different matters. | ||
|
101toss
3232 Posts
| ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
This is the same way people justify paparazzi going after celebs and stalking them. If harassment is a forceable unpleasant intrusion into someone's life, that they can't use any means to stop you, isn't that a bit like rape? The main reason for the psychological damage from rape is the helplessness aspect. Paparazzi do the same thing butting into celebrity's lives constantly, at their home, the beach, etc. Yet we as a public say "its their own fault for being celebrities". You see the problem? For being themselves, they get to be harassed? thats the same line of reasoning when people say "but she was dressing slutty and asking for it". She probably was, just not from the rapist but from someone they had their eye on for sex. So society is at once denying that this type of thinking allows people to get away with crimes, and at the same time imposes this type of thinking on whether what some people with cameras do is right or wrong. Do you know many paparazzi are just self employeed people that pick out particular celebs to stalk and photograph? How is it any different? Moral of the story: People are fine with a behavior thats immoral or unethical as long as they profit from it, or when it has a large number of supporters so it can be called a group (A single person throwing trash and yelling at people going to a soldier funeral vs a huge group picketing it). people condemn that same behavior (the justification for an action thats usually criminal, "rape shield law"), in people who do not give us any benefits when they commit an action, Or when they're solitary. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42768 Posts
On September 15 2011 02:44 Truedot wrote: CCTVs taking hundreds of pictures of you daily as you walk around london beg to differ that its not a police state. lol no | ||
|
lizzard_warish
589 Posts
 people can become sad if you are a meanie!!! </3 ] but this is ridiculous and Britain should be ashamed. What he did was wrong, but it should not be against the law in any civilized country. | ||
| ||
