Ha Ha Ha

[Svejk]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12174825/Brothers-jailed-after-mocking-judge-who-let-them-off.html

[jim360]

As funny as it is, it's also very frustrating reading. You'd like to think that in general criminals, once tried, convicted and punished, might (mostly) think better of it next time. Presumably, other criminals have shared similar thoughts to this pair but had the nous not to blab about it to the world.

[sandyRoe]

The only thing most criminals are sorry about is being caught.

[Hypognosis]

It would be funnier still if the decriminalisation trial runs, in other countries, come off well and it is found to be harmless, recreationally, as well as beneficial, medically.

My only real objection to giving it a try is that I suspect the ultimate destination of the money is in supporting terrorism, gang violence and so on, in remote parts of the world. I would feel almost personally responsible for helping to fund that.

If only governments could acknowledge that distributing cheap (not a tobacco-duty style cashcow), government grown, clinically clean, safety-tested products, they could destroy the income streams for the bad guys that they seem to have so much difficulty finding and apprehending.

[youngmafbog]

Pity he had let them off in the first place.

[ToraToraTora]

criminal morons who do not know the law but for me this just highlights how gullible our silly judges are.

[ToraToraTora]

sorry I forgot hypo, this is about the FBWD, silly me!

[Hypognosis]

@T^3

Acronym police notified. Nee-nar nee-nar.

[jim360]

The judge was a she not a he, but that aside I think calling her "gullible" is a tad harsh. The role of the justice system, is principle, not to be vengeful and malicious but to be -- well, just. And to me at least that means basing decisions only on what is presented before you. Even if, having seen the initial pleas/ expressions of remorse etc, before the passing of the initial sentence, you thought they were lying through their teeth, how certain would you be of it? And anyway being personally certain is not the same as being legally certain.

While the current system is open to this sort of mockery, though, it seems to me that this is preferable to a system where legal guilt is equated with moral guilt. I'd prefer that justice implicitly assume that people are redeemable (or at least start with that assumption and be required to strike it down), and sometimes mistake people like these two as being so, rather than the other way round, and condemn the redeemable along with everyone else.

[Zacs-Master]

Thick as a brick.

[ToraToraTora]

get real jim, 2 low life drug dealing scum with gawd know how much previous shed a few crocodile tears and she buys it! That's gullible with a capital G in my book.

[jim360]

Well all I can say TTT is that while this case does expose the problem of taking things at face value all the time, I would still prefer that to assuming the worst of everyone as a starting point.

Incidentally in the initial sentencing, the judge may have fallen for the brothers' remorse act but she was rather less generous to their father, asking him the legal equivalent of "Have you lost your *** mind or something?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12158252/Drug-dealer-who-avoided-prison-faces-resentencing-after-vulgar-Facebook-post.html

[ToraToraTora]

if it was their first offence maybe jim but clearly these are recidivists.

[New Judge]

Yes thanks for the correction, hypo. Typing in a rush and my spellcheck (unsurprisingly) does not contain the word :-)