Keiran Loveridge (1 Viewer)

[wannaspoon]

You haven't demonstrated how it was disproportionate or unfair

Furthermore, the law isn't based solely on what keeps the media or public happy, nor should it be

fair call, not going to get angry and pepper my argument with hash tags, l337 speak and talk of Norwegian socio-paths...

However, the law clearly has to somewhat serve the public interest... otherwise, the courts will just be enforcing a very self centred agenda that tarnishes the image of such an institution when the public eye look at it...

I'm too tired of this shit...

 

[Kiraken]

fair call, not going to get angry and pepper my argument with hash tags, l337 speak and talk of Norwegian socio-paths...

However, the law clearly has to somewhat serve the public interest... otherwise, the courts will just be enforcing a very self centred agenda that tarnishes the image of such an institution...

Public interest does not necessarily equate to "in the best interests of the public" though lol. If it always did we would have a law system that is essentially glorified mob rule

 

[wannaspoon]

Public interest does not necessarily equate to "in the best interests of the public" though lol. If it always did we would have a law system that is essentially glorified mob rule

I think we are a bit more reasoned to not resort to lynch mobs... although, I sometimes question society...

 

[Kiraken]

I think we are a bit more reasoned than resorting to lynch mobs... although, I sometimes question society...

Public opinion is fickle and easily changed, the law needs to be more stable than just "do what the majorty wants". Your own point about public outcry emphasises my point

Also does the majority even agree?

 

[Spiritual Bean]

Public opinion is fickle amd easily changed, the law needs to be more stable than just "do what the majorty wants"

Also does the majority even agree?

yes

 

[wannaspoon]

Public opinion is fickle and easily changed, the law needs to be more stable than just "do what the majorty wants". Your own point about public outcry emphasises my point

Also does the majority even agree?

you rely on public opinion and majority ruling to elect the same bastards who make these laws you speak highly of (which do work, might I add)...

they vote for those laws on a majority rules basis as well...

this shit is a never ending argument that will just continue to stem more bullshit... I'm not talking about your argument also I am talking about the topic in general...

 

[Kiraken]

you rely on public opinion and majority ruling to elect the same bastards who make these laws you speak highly of...

they vote for those laws on a majority rules basis as well...

this shit is a never ending argument that will just continue to stem more bullshit...

What qualifies them as bastards for making these laws?

Also there is more to a law than just some politician writing what they want, there is actually a process to it, furthermore this particular law and most laws are put in because there is some sort of logical reason for it, not because some people were upset and the politcians wanted to make them happy despite it otherwise being completely counter productive.

 

[Crobat]

You guys are both being idiots. Stay away from referencing the case of Anders Breivik because it proves nothing and it was irrelevantly brought up. Clearly neither of you actually know much about the case than the bare facts so trying to use it in an argument is retarded. A hopeful lawyer should know that. Loveridge is not a serial killer, so this case is immediately irrelevant to the discussion at hand as they are incomparable. It's also in the Norwegian jurisdiction, which is actually a civil law system, so it's persuasiveness is also limited at best. It may interest you to know that Breivik was determined to be criminally insane, so you can put the rest together from there, knowing what insanity amounts to in most legal systems. Norway is a country largely respected for being ahead of the world in a lot of things, recidivism inclusive (Norway, winner as usual).

Judiciary should have: flexed its own muscle, handed down a sentence that was actually proportionate to the crime and kept everyone happy... legislature the would not need to get involved and manage to fuck up the present law (like they have done with almost every other law)

This is a silly comment. The judiciary DID hand down a sentence that was entirely in line with the law. The Justice's execution of the law was flawless in this case. The fact that the sentence is too lenient is the fault of the legislation provided by the Legislature (Parliament). The Justice was in no position to give any other sentence because he otherwise would have been essentially breaking the law, and the Judicature in general is in no position to undermine the Legislature. For the Judge to have strayed from the sentences prescribed in the legislation is simply unconstitutional, and that err in law would be corrected almost immediately. The fault is in the Legislature, and also in part of the Executive for incorrectly charging Loveridge in the first place. Let's have a former DPP tell that you: Nicholas Cowdery.

Laws can be changed, and this case will probably be one of many that spur this change for this crime. The public is generally fucking stupid. They'll only take things at face value or as delivered to them by the media (which is highly paraphrased and often out of context). Their response is something to consider since the justice system is based on the protection of the community, but that doesn't justify the misdirection of their outrage.

EDIT: I can see funkshen has returned. #bracing4impact

 

[Spiritual Bean]

You guys are both being idiots. Stay away from referencing the case of Anders Breivik because it proves nothing and it was irrelevantly brought up. Clearly neither of you actually know much about the case than the bare facts so trying to use it in an argument is retarded. A hopeful lawyer should know that. Loveridge is not a serial killer, so this case is immediately irrelevant to the discussion at hand as they are incomparable. It's also in the Norwegian jurisdiction, which is actually a civil law system, so it's persuasiveness is also limited at best. It may interest you to know that Breivik was determined to be criminally insane, so you can put the rest together from there, knowing what insanity amounts to in most legal systems. Norway is a country largely respected for being ahead of the world in a lot of things, recidivism inclusive (Norway, winner as usual).



This is a silly comment. The judiciary DID hand down a sentence that was entirely in line with the law. The Justice's execution of the law was flawless in this case. The fact that the sentence is too lenient is the fault of the legislation provided by the Legislature (Parliament). The Justice was in no position to give any other sentence because he otherwise would have been essentially breaking the law, and the Judicature in general is in no position to undermine the Legislature. For the Judge to have strayed from the sentences prescribed in the legislation is simply unconstitutional, and that err in law would be corrected almost immediately. The fault is in the Legislature, and also in part of the Executive for incorrectly charging Loveridge in the first place. Let's have a former DPP tell that you: Nicholas Cowdery.

Laws can be changed, and this case will probably be one of many that spur this change for this crime. The public is generally fucking stupid. They'll only take things at face value or as delivered to them by the media (which is highly paraphrased and often out of context). Their response is something to consider since the justice system is based on the protection of the community, but that doesn't justify the misdirection of their outrage.

EDIT: I can see funkshen has returned. #bracing4impact

btw fix your sig, the judiciary is a pretty cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything

 

[funkshen]

this thread makes my penis rock hard

 

[Crobat]

btw fix your sig, the judiciary is a pretty cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything

but the judiciary is a pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything

 

[nerdasdasd]

35 - too leniant
2 - too harsh
:O

 

[Crobat]

35 - too leniant
2 - too harsh
:O

There was meant to be an 'adequate' option but yeah i fucked it

 

[Graney]

Anders Breivik isn't a serial killer. A serial killer is defined as someone who murders several people over an extended period (weeks/months), with a cooling off period between murders.

 

[Kiraken]

You guys are both being idiots. Stay away from referencing the case of Anders Breivik because it proves nothing and it was irrelevantly brought up. Clearly neither of you actually know much about the case than the bare facts so trying to use it in an argument is retarded. A hopeful lawyer should know that. Loveridge is not a serial killer, so this case is immediately irrelevant to the discussion at hand as they are incomparable. It's also in the Norwegian jurisdiction, which is actually a civil law system, so it's persuasiveness is also limited at best. It may interest you to know that Breivik was determined to be criminally insane, so you can put the rest together from there, knowing what insanity amounts to in most legal systems. Norway is a country largely respected for being ahead of the world in a lot of things, recidivism inclusive (Norway, winner as usual).



This is a silly comment. The judiciary DID hand down a sentence that was entirely in line with the law. The Justice's execution of the law was flawless in this case. The fact that the sentence is too lenient is the fault of the legislation provided by the Legislature (Parliament). The Justice was in no position to give any other sentence because he otherwise would have been essentially breaking the law, and the Judicature in general is in no position to undermine the Legislature. For the Judge to have strayed from the sentences prescribed in the legislation is simply unconstitutional, and that err in law would be corrected almost immediately. The fault is in the Legislature, and also in part of the Executive for incorrectly charging Loveridge in the first place. Let's have a former DPP tell that you: Nicholas Cowdery.

Laws can be changed, and this case will probably be one of many that spur this change for this crime. The public is generally fucking stupid. They'll only take things at face value or as delivered to them by the media (which is highly paraphrased and often out of context). Their response is something to consider since the justice system is based on the protection of the community, but that doesn't justify the misdirection of their outrage.

EDIT: I can see funkshen has returned. #bracing4impact

to clarify, I did not bring up Anders Brievik, I simply stated that Norway's system is an example of rehabilitation being effective as it has low recidivism rates. When Spiritual Bean brought up Anders Brievik I spent the entire time trying to tell him why that was irrelevant to the debate lol

But yes I agree 100% with everything else you said lol

 

[sirable1]

They should have skinned this motherfucker, then placed in a tank of salty water with sharks inside of it

 

[sirable1]

I've been to the streets of the Cross. I gotta say, even during the daytime, I've seen potential escorts lying around the station...

 

[Crobat]

I've been to the streets of the Cross. I gotta say, even during the daytime, I've seen potential escorts lying around the station...

Yeah I went once... I've never felt so unclean and unsafe ever

Had to basically burn my clothes and take 4 showers to get the feeling and the smell of cigarettes off

 

[Crobat]

So it looks like it's happened again.

 

[funkshen]

keiran loveridge is rolling in his grave