Justice System Fails

[Atom Smash40]

I've got a few, I'll start off with one.

 

A man buys a brand new RV for $X (doesn't matter, and I don't know). He drives it on the highway and decides to turn on cruise control at 70MPH. After doing so, he leaves the driver seat and goes to the back to make some coffee. Lo and behold, the RV crashes. The man sues the RV company for damages on the basis that in the owner's manual it did not state in wording that you cannot/should not leave the driver's seat even if you have cruise control on. He wins and is awarded $1.2M and a new RV. Believe it or not, but after said case, the RV company started printing, in the owner's manual, "You cannot leave the driver's seat even if cruise control is turned ON."

[K4ylan]

Stupidity>the law

[Obtaurian]

Oldie but goody. Thanks for sharing.

[Maxingmck]

Hypocrite

[Dizzle229]

My grandpa had built an amazing house in Montauk. When he died, his girlfriend, who was basically just with him for the money, tried to claim that they were married, and that the house, the business, and all his money, be given to her. My dad and uncles were not happy, and they took her on a nine year court case.

 

Her argument was based on a stupid Georgia law that said that if a couple stay in a hotel room together, they're married. Though my family eventually won the case, they had decided that that wasn't enough. They wanted to ruin her life for what she did. They ended up counter-sueing, and while I haven't heard the exact details, she had to pay for the entire case, including lawyers. She has never been able to live comfortably since then.

 

Anyways, they told me that if she won the case, they planned to burn the house and business to the ground. Even if she won, they had decided that she wasn't getting a thing.

[Rien]

My grandpa had built an amazing house in Montauk. When he died, his girlfriend, who was basically just with him for the money, tried to claim that they were married, and that the house, the business, and all his money, be given to her. My dad and uncles were not happy, and they took her on a nine year court case.

 

Her argument was based on a stupid Georgia law that said that if a couple stay in a hotel room together, they're married. Though my family eventually won the case, they had decided that that wasn't enough. They wanted to ruin her life for what she did. They ended up counter-sueing, and while I haven't heard the exact details, she had to pay for the entire case, including lawyers. She has never been able to live comfortably since then.

 

Anyways, they told me that if she won the case, they planned to burn the house to the ground.

 

If that's true, then I'm worried for your family. :unsure:

 

Certainly, she was in the wrong for what she was trying to do, but your family's actions were a bit... extreme, to say the least. :blink:

[Dizzle229]

My grandpa had built an amazing house in Montauk. When he died, his girlfriend, who was basically just with him for the money, tried to claim that they were married, and that the house, the business, and all his money, be given to her. My dad and uncles were not happy, and they took her on a nine year court case.

 

Her argument was based on a stupid Georgia law that said that if a couple stay in a hotel room together, they're married. Though my family eventually won the case, they had decided that that wasn't enough. They wanted to ruin her life for what she did. They ended up counter-sueing, and while I haven't heard the exact details, she had to pay for the entire case, including lawyers. She has never been able to live comfortably since then.

 

Anyways, they told me that if she won the case, they planned to burn the house to the ground.

 

If that's true, then I'm worried for your family. :unsure:

 

Certainly, she was in the wrong for what she was trying to do, but your family's actions were a bit... extreme, to say the least. :blink:

 

Why is that extreme? If she succeded in taking the business, we lose our biggest asset. She tried to ruin us, and she got bit in the [wagon] for it.

 

And she was in the wrong, so no matter what the legal systems opinion was, she could not be allowed to enjoy her false winnings.

[Maxingmck]

They won so they didnt burn it amirite

[Rien]

My grandpa had built an amazing house in Montauk. When he died, his girlfriend, who was basically just with him for the money, tried to claim that they were married, and that the house, the business, and all his money, be given to her. My dad and uncles were not happy, and they took her on a nine year court case.

 

Her argument was based on a stupid Georgia law that said that if a couple stay in a hotel room together, they're married. Though my family eventually won the case, they had decided that that wasn't enough. They wanted to ruin her life for what she did. They ended up counter-sueing, and while I haven't heard the exact details, she had to pay for the entire case, including lawyers. She has never been able to live comfortably since then.

 

Anyways, they told me that if she won the case, they planned to burn the house to the ground.

 

If that's true, then I'm worried for your family. :unsure:

 

Certainly, she was in the wrong for what she was trying to do, but your family's actions were a bit... extreme, to say the least. :blink:

 

Why is that extreme? If she succeded in taking the business, we lose our biggest asset. She tried to ruin us, and she got bit in the [wagon] for it.

 

Like I said, I agree that she was in the wrong. However, planning to burn down the house if you had lost the case? Viciously trying to ruin her after you won? I would definitely call that extreme. :mellow:

 

I'd even go so far as to say that it's childish ("If I can't have it, then nobody can!"), to be honest. Revenge and petty hate don't solve anything.

[OldJoe]

How many stories do you want from Sweden?

 

We can start by saying, move here if you're a criminal. There's no sentences (basically) and the prisons are very nice, tv included on most rooms!

I'll list a few:

A family who's daughter got killed by a couple of other teens (victim+murderers about age 15-16), got compensation (don't know the proper word) of about 10k for her death.

A girl who were refused to were this headgear... Niqab(?) in school, 14k in compensation.

 

The Piratebay guys, the sentence was like 9-12months in prison +pay 2.8m .

Two dudes raped a girl in school (during school time and they went to the same school), victim age 16, [wagon] same age. Sentence person 1: 30h of youth-community service and pay the girl 5000kr (about 500). Sentence person 2: 6 months of closed "youth care" and pay 82 000kr (about 8200).

 

Our law book needs to be re-written for the modern age and stop this crap with "bohoo, poor person who commited the crime.... We'll just give you a slap on the hand and start with the "rehab".

[Zierro]

^^Wow, that's pretty disturbing. They're not really discouraging the crimes at all.

 

I have a story. My friend's mom got robbed at gunpoint and they stole her prescription medication. Then one day some cops found the robbers with it and the robbers lied and said that she sold it to them (her name being on the bottles), so she was arrested.

[Dizzle229]

My grandpa had built an amazing house in Montauk. When he died, his girlfriend, who was basically just with him for the money, tried to claim that they were married, and that the house, the business, and all his money, be given to her. My dad and uncles were not happy, and they took her on a nine year court case.

 

Her argument was based on a stupid Georgia law that said that if a couple stay in a hotel room together, they're married. Though my family eventually won the case, they had decided that that wasn't enough. They wanted to ruin her life for what she did. They ended up counter-sueing, and while I haven't heard the exact details, she had to pay for the entire case, including lawyers. She has never been able to live comfortably since then.

 

Anyways, they told me that if she won the case, they planned to burn the house to the ground.

 

If that's true, then I'm worried for your family. :unsure:

 

Certainly, she was in the wrong for what she was trying to do, but your family's actions were a bit... extreme, to say the least. :blink:

 

 

Why is that extreme? If she succeded in taking the business, we lose our biggest asset. She tried to ruin us, and she got bit in the [wagon] for it.

 

Like I said, I agree that she was in the wrong. However, planning to burn down the house if you had lost the case? Viciously trying to ruin her after you won? I would definitely call that extreme. :mellow:

 

I'd even go so far as to say that it's childish ("If I can't have it, then nobody can!"), to be honest. Revenge and petty hate don't solve anything.

 

Nonononono, we won, so we didn't burn it down.

 

But the point is that she was ONLY with the guy so that she could take it. She didn't deserve the business/house/cash, and legally it wasn't hers, so why should she have it? She was a bad person, and she wasn't going to get rich because of a lie she told everyone. It wasn't. "if we cant have it nobody can", it was "the dishonest [bleep] sure as hell isn't getting it".

[Danqazmlp]

The whole legal system in the UK is a fail.

 

Basically imo, the enforcement of Human rights in life is holding back civilization. I personally believe criminals null their human rights when they commit a crime and should not have as much as they do. Giving people the short sentences that they currently get is no deterrent for criminals.

[Zierro]

Basically imo, the enforcement of Human rights in life is holding back civilization. I personally believe criminals null their human rights when they commit a crime and should not have as much as they do. Giving people the short sentences that they currently get is no deterrent for criminals.

 

Exactly. That's why I never understood "two wrongs don't make a right". They do, because they discourage immoral actions from happening.

[Bloodstain]

Basically imo, the enforcement of Human rights in life is holding back civilization. I personally believe criminals null their human rights when they commit a crime and should not have as much as they do. Giving people the short sentences that they currently get is no deterrent for criminals.

 

Exactly. That's why I never understood "two wrongs don't make a right". They do, because they discourage immoral actions from happening.

 

Prison/punishment as a general/specific deterrent doesn't work :wink:

[Zierro]

They still discourage it, which should be obligatory. By merely slapping their wrists, it's almost like encouraging it. That's like saying, "It's stupid to tell kids to wear condoms, because they won't anyways." That doesn't mean that you shouldn't discourage unsafe sex.

 

Also, saying it isn't a deterrent at all is quite a bold and convenient claim. How do you know this? You know that there has never been a person who thought, "Damn, I want to do this crime but I don't want to get punished for it so I won't."?

[Pirate_Felix]

Lols

In belgium they were searching for a criminal that already was in prison

[Dizzle229]

Lols

In belgium they were searching for a criminal that already was in prison

 

I have a book on my nightstand called the Stupid Crook Book, about criminals that were caught because they did something stupid. I'll post some in a min.

 

"Moronic Move 1: Our crook smashes his fist through a window in the shed - shredding his hand.

 

MM2: Our crook successfully breaks into the second story of the nearby garage. The garage is dark, and he doesn't have a flashlight. He doesn't notice the hole in the floor, and falls through.

 

MM3: Dazed and confused, he falls into the grease pit, cracking his skull.

 

MM4: He gives up with the garage and breaks into the house, where he tumbles down the cellar stairs.

 

MM5: He gives up and gets back in his car, which he looses control of, hits a tree, and smashes his head into the steering wheel.

 

MM6: He gets out of the car, locking the doors behind him. For some reason, he then retraces his steps back into the garage, and retraces his fall back into the grease pit.

 

MM7: He goes back to the car, and realizes he locked the keys inside. He breaks in, but by mistake puts the car in neutral. He rolls down the hill and hits a second tree.

 

MM8: He gets knocked out by this hit, and his head falls to rest on the steering wheel. The blaring horn attarcts the attention of neighbors, who call the police.

 

 

He ended up pleading guilty to criminal mischief. (He never actually stole anything.)"

[Distracted]

Lols

In belgium they were searching for a criminal that already was in prison

 

I have a book on my nightstand called the Stupid Crook Book, about criminals that were caught because they did something stupid. I'll post some in a min.

 

"Moronic Move 1: Our crook smashes his fist through a window in the shed - shredding his hand.

 

MM2: Our crook successfully breaks into the second story of the nearby garage. The garage is dark, and he doesn't have a flashlight. He doesn't notice the hole in the floor, and falls through.

 

MM3: Dazed and confused, he falls into the grease pit, cracking his skull.

 

MM4: He gives up with the garage and breaks into the house, where he tumbles down the cellar stairs.

 

MM5: He gives up and gets back in his car, which he looses control of, hits a tree, and smashes his head into the steering wheel.

 

MM6: He gets out of the car, locking the doors behind him. For some reason, he then retraces his steps back into the garage, and retraces his fall back into the grease pit.

 

MM7: He goes back to the car, and realizes he locked the keys inside. He breaks in, but by mistake puts the car in neutral. He rolls down the hill and hits a second tree.

 

MM8: He gets knocked out by this hit, and his head falls to rest on the steering wheel. The blaring horn attarcts the attention of neighbors, who call the police.

 

 

He ended up pleading guilty to criminal mischief. (He never actually stole anything.)"

 

That guy must've been drunk lol, do they give more details?

 

Also, I can't think of a lot, except for the many criminals that got released because of 'procedure mistakes' here in Belgium. Also, how the hell do two prisoners escape by helicopter. You'd think a prison guard would be better at spotting danger then some guard in an old game, but if they miss a freakin' helicopter landing in the yard...

[1_man_army]

Basically imo, the enforcement of Human rights in life is holding back civilization. I personally believe criminals null their human rights when they commit a crime and should not have as much as they do. Giving people the short sentences that they currently get is no deterrent for criminals.

 

Exactly. That's why I never understood "two wrongs don't make a right". They do, because they discourage immoral actions from happening.

 

 

The problem with this train of thought is that it tends towards acting vengfully and not in a just a manner. If society is to discourage and decry certain acts/behaviours it would be hypocritical and counter-productive to treat just do away with peoples rights like this. A sentence should reflect the severity of the crime, a lesser crime should warrant a lesser sentence that is blaringly obvious but at the same time you have to consider what sort of punishment is most effective - in certain crimes community service is more effective (as is short sentences in some cases). This may not sit well with many people and there may occasionally be errors but a judge is there not just to punish a perpetrator but to pass a sentence that will benefit society in the long run. Having long and severe automatic sentences often doesn't work as a deterant for crimes, especially ones that involve spur of the moment decisions and crimes of passion (I think we;ve had this conversation before). What is also interesting is that so many people call for tougher sentences for criminals regardless of the crime but these are often the same people who would go mad if their taxes were raised to fund the extra prisons to pay for these things.

 

Too often people want revenge rather than justice in the legal system and that just doesn't help, it doesn't

[OldJoe]

Basically imo, the enforcement of Human rights in life is holding back civilization. I personally believe criminals null their human rights when they commit a crime and should not have as much as they do. Giving people the short sentences that they currently get is no deterrent for criminals.

 

Exactly. That's why I never understood "two wrongs don't make a right". They do, because they discourage immoral actions from happening.

 

 

The problem with this train of thought is that it tends towards acting vengfully and not in a just a manner. If society is to discourage and decry certain acts/behaviours it would be hypocritical and counter-productive to treat just do away with peoples rights like this. A sentence should reflect the severity of the crime, a lesser crime should warrant a lesser sentence that is blaringly obvious but at the same time you have to consider what sort of punishment is most effective - in certain crimes community service is more effective (as is short sentences in some cases). This may not sit well with many people and there may occasionally be errors but a judge is there not just to punish a perpetrator but to pass a sentence that will benefit society in the long run. Having long and severe automatic sentences often doesn't work as a deterant for crimes, especially ones that involve spur of the moment decisions and crimes of passion (I think we;ve had this conversation before). What is also interesting is that so many people call for tougher sentences for criminals regardless of the crime but these are often the same people who would go mad if their taxes were raised to fund the extra prisons to pay for these things.

 

Too often people want revenge rather than justice in the legal system and that just doesn't help, it doesn't

 

I want tougher sentences and lower taxes =) Altho i live in an extremely socialised country.

 

But let's take this: My country leads the number of reported rapes in Europe per capita ( http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/flest-valdtakter-i-sverige-1.853118 +use translation tool). Obviously there's several reasons for this. People know they won't get any serious penalties unless it involves a child i.e. Read my examples above. Also take into consideration that most adults get somewhere between 0-12 months in prison for raping somebody, do you think this is a reasonable sentence? I don't.

But the laws as a whole are a joke in my country. I often say this, that you get a more severe sentence when it involves economics than assault for example.

Of course it depends on what country you're in and how the economic situation in the country is as a whole, but that's nothing to with raping or gang-assault one person. I also think the police in certain countries invoke different kinds of respect. I can easily say that i have more respect Russian or Brazilian cops than Swedish ones. The big factor there is, that i know those doesn't shy from using force. So yes, i think that force and sentences does play a factor in what kind of respect you have for the law.

[1_man_army]

Of course I don't think that is a reasonable sentence that is why I specifically mention that sentencing should reflect the severity of a crime, I consider rape a very serious crime and therefore it shoulld be treated that way in sentencing. The real problem I have is with people wanting to criminals to be given sentences that are totally disproportionate.

[OldJoe]

Of course I don't think that is a reasonable sentence that is why I specifically mention that sentencing should reflect the severity of a crime, I consider rape a very serious crime and therefore it shoulld be treated that way in sentencing. The real problem I have is with people wanting to criminals to be given sentences that are totally disproportionate.

Then i'm catching up with you.

 

I'm a bit weird since i'm very conservative and very liberal in certain areas. If we take weird sentences, weed.

I don't know how many times i've read people getting sentenced to prison for a couple of weeks or months for possession of x grams of cannabis.

And (as mentioned earlier) the scenario with Piratebay. But of course, that's do with that those companies have pretty well paid lobby groups and lawyers.

[Bloodstain]

They still discourage it, which should be obligatory. By merely slapping their wrists, it's almost like encouraging it. That's like saying, "It's stupid to tell kids to wear condoms, because they won't anyways." That doesn't mean that you shouldn't discourage unsafe sex.

 

Also, saying it isn't a deterrent at all is quite a bold and convenient claim. How do you know this? You know that there has never been a person who thought, "Damn, I want to do this crime but I don't want to get punished for it so I won't."?

 

Do some looking, it's a common sentiment/research finding in the CJ field.

[Giordano]

Are justice and revenge really two different things? Aren't they basically the same?

 

Why do we have trials and courts? Why do we find people guilty? What purpose does that do? It won't restart life to before the crime: it won't bring back the dead, it won't bring back your trashed stolen car. What actual purpose is there? To "correct" them and bring them back into society? I laugh. Most of the people laugh. People are like children. Parents who use strong and swift punishments injects fear into the child; fear of doing a wrong-doing. Adults would fall under the same thing. Why do you stop at a red light when no one's looking? Why do you double-think about beating the annoying kid at school? Because of the possible punishment.

 

If "justice" is correcting a criminal so he can be a productive worker of society, then that is NOT justice. That is rehabilitation. Last I understood, courts were supposed to bring justice not rehabilitation.

 

 

It is hard to understand this way of thinking until something injust had happened close to you. Stupid laws about murdering a murder shouldn't bother an innocent, yet, it does. Why is that so? Authority trying to control society but do so in the wrong direction. Horribly in the wrong direction. Most conflicts can be solved amongst ourselves: by the people who experienced it. Not by a judge or 12 random people who are hearing biased sides of the conflict.