On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 18:54:32 +0100, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:870o44douc8fr83d8hk4lvi70c0m77chg8@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:26:42 -0500, Jeremy Henty
>>  blethered:
>
>[]
>
>>>The purpose of social conservative
>>>policies on sexuality is to punish sexuality.  Equally, their policies
>>>on drugs don't work, because they  want to punish drug users, not help
>>>them.  And why  are they so keen  on "lock them up and  throw away the
>>>key" policies that  are certain to perpetuate crime  rather than solve
>>>it?  You got it!  "Blow you Jack, I'm all right and I've got the moral
>>>high ground".
>>
>> Why is this so? Or perhaps, why is this *still* so?
>
>Because they're not interested in policies which work, only ones which 
>support their own preferences. 

Yebbut *why*? That's just stupid. I mean - gah!

>And I reckon a lot of *that* comes down to "I 
>wasn't allowed to do XYZ and so I'll make sure no-one else has the chance 
>to, either". The sour grapes model of social control :(

Yeah, I can see that. :-/ Look at how many tabloids love to bay for
the blood of someone convicted of something. The number of times that
a person is convicted and there is an immediate outcry about the
leniency of their punishment (which should of course be 'sentence'
instead - and whether or not those sentences are appropriate is
another subject :-) is in indication of a vindictiveness about these
things. 


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:00:23 +0100, Halla
 wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 18:54:32 +0100, "Jani" 
>blethered:
>
>>
>>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>>news:870o44douc8fr83d8hk4lvi70c0m77chg8@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:26:42 -0500, Jeremy Henty
>>>  blethered:
>>
>>[]
>>
>>>>The purpose of social conservative
>>>>policies on sexuality is to punish sexuality.  Equally, their policies
>>>>on drugs don't work, because they  want to punish drug users, not help
>>>>them.  And why  are they so keen  on "lock them up and  throw away the
>>>>key" policies that  are certain to perpetuate crime  rather than solve
>>>>it?  You got it!  "Blow you Jack, I'm all right and I've got the moral
>>>>high ground".
>>>
>>> Why is this so? Or perhaps, why is this *still* so?
>>
>>Because they're not interested in policies which work, only ones which 
>>support their own preferences. 
>
>Yebbut *why*? That's just stupid. I mean - gah!
>
>>And I reckon a lot of *that* comes down to "I 
>>wasn't allowed to do XYZ and so I'll make sure no-one else has the chance 
>>to, either". The sour grapes model of social control :(
>
>Yeah, I can see that. :-/ Look at how many tabloids love to bay for
>the blood of someone convicted of something. The number of times that
>a person is convicted and there is an immediate outcry about the
>leniency of their punishment (which should of course be 'sentence'
>instead - and whether or not those sentences are appropriate is
>another subject :-) is in indication of a vindictiveness about these
>things. 

Tabloid editors -- or their best guess about the views of their
intended audience, which is not necessarily the same thing -- are
interested in revenge rather than justice, let alone rehabilitation.
The point of a legal system is to provide a better and fairer
alternative to the retribution which a victim or a victim's family
might exact if there were no law.

There are times when I have to grit my teeth to stop myself advocating
curbs on a free press.

-- 

Wood Avens

"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
should that mean that it is not real?"

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:10:49 +0100, Wood Avens
 blethered:

>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:00:23 +0100, Halla
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 18:54:32 +0100, "Jani" 
>>blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>>>news:870o44douc8fr83d8hk4lvi70c0m77chg8@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:26:42 -0500, Jeremy Henty
>>>>  blethered:
>>>
>>>[]
>>>
>>>>>The purpose of social conservative
>>>>>policies on sexuality is to punish sexuality.  Equally, their policies
>>>>>on drugs don't work, because they  want to punish drug users, not help
>>>>>them.  And why  are they so keen  on "lock them up and  throw away the
>>>>>key" policies that  are certain to perpetuate crime  rather than solve
>>>>>it?  You got it!  "Blow you Jack, I'm all right and I've got the moral
>>>>>high ground".
>>>>
>>>> Why is this so? Or perhaps, why is this *still* so?
>>>
>>>Because they're not interested in policies which work, only ones which 
>>>support their own preferences. 
>>
>>Yebbut *why*? That's just stupid. I mean - gah!
>>
>>>And I reckon a lot of *that* comes down to "I 
>>>wasn't allowed to do XYZ and so I'll make sure no-one else has the chance 
>>>to, either". The sour grapes model of social control :(
>>
>>Yeah, I can see that. :-/ Look at how many tabloids love to bay for
>>the blood of someone convicted of something. The number of times that
>>a person is convicted and there is an immediate outcry about the
>>leniency of their punishment (which should of course be 'sentence'
>>instead - and whether or not those sentences are appropriate is
>>another subject :-) is in indication of a vindictiveness about these
>>things. 
>
>Tabloid editors -- or their best guess about the views of their
>intended audience, which is not necessarily the same thing -- are
>interested in revenge rather than justice, let alone rehabilitation.

In this are they reflecting the opinion of their readers or attempting
to influence it?

>The point of a legal system is to provide a better and fairer
>alternative to the retribution which a victim or a victim's family
>might exact if there were no law.

An admirable aim. Does our legal system manage this, do you think?

>
>There are times when I have to grit my teeth to stop myself advocating
>curbs on a free press.

Heh. Yes, well. <:-) 


-- 
"...responsibility and delight can co-exist..."
 -Philip Pullman

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:11:52 +0100, Halla
 wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:10:49 +0100, Wood Avens
> blethered:
>
>>
>>Tabloid editors -- or their best guess about the views of their
>>intended audience, which is not necessarily the same thing -- are
>>interested in revenge rather than justice, let alone rehabilitation.
>
>In this are they reflecting the opinion of their readers or attempting
>to influence it?

I wonder sometimes.  Probably depends.  Given that the overriding aim
is to sell more papers, it's to reflect what the editors think people
like to read about, and people like to be entertained.  So that may
mean reports of people doing or thinking things they (the putative
readers) disagree with, giving them the opportunity to go "Ooh!
That's terrible!"  But in the case of revenge versus justice, I think
it's simpler than that: revenge, or calls for revenge, or stories
about how angry the victims feel that the perpetrator is "getting off
lightly", are just more attention-catching and entertaining than
stories about justice.

>
>>The point of a legal system is to provide a better and fairer
>>alternative to the retribution which a victim or a victim's family
>>might exact if there were no law.
>
>An admirable aim. Does our legal system manage this, do you think?
>

Actually I think that on the whole it does, largely because most
judges don't rread the tabloids and aren't therefore likely to be
influenced by their revenge culture.

-- 

Wood Avens

"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
should that mean that it is not real?"

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

"Wood Avens"  wrote in message 
news:78uv449gfo3rodnrm6jnsfuatiil8l8tft@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:11:52 +0100, Halla
>  wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:10:49 +0100, Wood Avens
>> blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>Tabloid editors -- or their best guess about the views of their
>>>intended audience, which is not necessarily the same thing -- are
>>>interested in revenge rather than justice, let alone rehabilitation.
>>
>>In this are they reflecting the opinion of their readers or attempting
>>to influence it?
>
> I wonder sometimes.  Probably depends.  Given that the overriding aim
> is to sell more papers, it's to reflect what the editors think people
> like to read about, and people like to be entertained.  So that may
> mean reports of people doing or thinking things they (the putative
> readers) disagree with, giving them the opportunity to go "Ooh!
> That's terrible!"  But in the case of revenge versus justice, I think
> it's simpler than that: revenge, or calls for revenge, or stories
> about how angry the victims feel that the perpetrator is "getting off
> lightly", are just more attention-catching and entertaining than
> stories about justice.
>
>>
>>>The point of a legal system is to provide a better and fairer
>>>alternative to the retribution which a victim or a victim's family
>>>might exact if there were no law.
>>
>>An admirable aim. Does our legal system manage this, do you think?
>>
>
> Actually I think that on the whole it does, largely because most
> judges don't rread the tabloids and aren't therefore likely to be
> influenced by their revenge culture.

They are bound by sentencing policy, though, which is indirectly influenced 
by public opinion.

Jani

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:04:51 +0100, Wood Avens
 blethered:

>On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:11:52 +0100, Halla
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:10:49 +0100, Wood Avens
>> blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>Tabloid editors -- or their best guess about the views of their
>>>intended audience, which is not necessarily the same thing -- are
>>>interested in revenge rather than justice, let alone rehabilitation.
>>
>>In this are they reflecting the opinion of their readers or attempting
>>to influence it?
>
>I wonder sometimes.  Probably depends.  Given that the overriding aim
>is to sell more papers, it's to reflect what the editors think people
>like to read about, and people like to be entertained.  

Hmm, goodness know we don't want to read any *news*. *sighs*

>So that may
>mean reports of people doing or thinking things they (the putative
>readers) disagree with, giving them the opportunity to go "Ooh!
>That's terrible!"  

We're a nation of gawkers and voyeurs. <g>

>But in the case of revenge versus justice, I think
>it's simpler than that: revenge, or calls for revenge, or stories
>about how angry the victims feel that the perpetrator is "getting off
>lightly", are just more attention-catching and entertaining than
>stories about justice.

<nods> Yes, I suppose there wouldn't be much 'news' in reporting that
the sentence was satisfactory to all parties and that the offender
accepted their guilt and need to make reparations for their crime. 

>
>>
>>>The point of a legal system is to provide a better and fairer
>>>alternative to the retribution which a victim or a victim's family
>>>might exact if there were no law.
>>
>>An admirable aim. Does our legal system manage this, do you think?
>>
>
>Actually I think that on the whole it does, largely because most
>judges don't rread the tabloids and aren't therefore likely to be
>influenced by their revenge culture.

I'm fairly sure they are harried by all sorts of people who do keep
abreast of what tabloid 'culture' is saying though. Am I right in
thinking that the English legal system is seperate from government? (I
don't expect anyone to know about the system here, I don't ;-)


-- 
"...responsibility and delight can co-exist..."
 -Philip Pullman

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:24:06 +0100, Halla
 wrote:


>Am I right in
>thinking that the English legal system is seperate from government?

Yes -- crucially.  The government passes laws, but the judiciary is
quite good at doing things with them that the government doesn't like.
:-)

-- 

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:24:06 +0100, Halla
 wrote:


>Am I right in
>thinking that the English legal system is seperate from government?

PS  There's quite a good W*** article about English common law.  It
includes this:  

"The essence of English common law is that it is made by judges
sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal
precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them. A decision of the
highest appeal court in England and Wales, the House of Lords, is
binding on every other court in the hierarchy, and they will follow
its directions. For example, there is no statute making murder
illegal. It is a common law crime - so although there is no written
Act of Parliament making murder illegal, it is illegal by virtue of
the constitutional authority of the courts and their previous
decisions. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament;
murder, by way of example, carries a mandatory life sentence today,
but had previously allowed the death penalty."

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:57:42 +0100, Wood Avens
 blethered:

>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:24:06 +0100, Halla
> wrote:
>
>
>>Am I right in
>>thinking that the English legal system is seperate from government?
>
>Yes -- crucially.  The government passes laws, but the judiciary is
>quite good at doing things with them that the government doesn't like.
>:-)

How dare they. :-)

In one of those nice moments of synchronicity I saw a bit of the Tony
Robinson Crime and Punishement thing this evening, which does a good
explanation of the seperation of law and goverment for people like
meself. <g> 


-- 
"...responsibility and delight can co-exist..."
 -Philip Pullman

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:04:04 +0100, Wood Avens
 blethered:

>On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:24:06 +0100, Halla
> wrote:
>
>
>>Am I right in
>>thinking that the English legal system is seperate from government?
>
>PS  There's quite a good W*** article about English common law.  It
>includes this:  
>
>"The essence of English common law is that it is made by judges
>sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal
>precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them. A decision of the
>highest appeal court in England and Wales, the House of Lords, is
>binding on every other court in the hierarchy, and they will follow
>its directions. For example, there is no statute making murder
>illegal. It is a common law crime - so although there is no written
>Act of Parliament making murder illegal, it is illegal by virtue of
>the constitutional authority of the courts and their previous
>decisions. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament;
>murder, by way of example, carries a mandatory life sentence today,
>but had previously allowed the death penalty."

Hmm, the ultimate triumph of common sense?

I know that common law spouses were done away with (er, in a manner of
speaking...) some time ago here. That was a case of accepted use and
practice (in a manner of speaking...) I believe.


-- 
"...responsibility and delight can co-exist..."
 -Philip Pullman