Hello!
Last night, as I said in the previous post, I felt particularly inspired and got nothing but a Mafalda comic so it does not say that this blog is not updated. The truth is that I have thought a few issues, but watching TV this morning has left a notice that I am compelled to comment, this time from the right. If no more than turn the TV to see what I said long ago that the right is everywhere true. And if we add that truth is stranger than fiction often have a pretty picture.
The news, published in El Punt de Girona, would become the following: guy three additional berths with a cutter and, once you have all your belongings, give them the opportunity to recover all game of rock, paper, scissors . As winner takes the loot, but this does not prevent the three boys he reported to the police, who soon will stop. The prosecutor asks for 4 ½ years in prison for a robbery with a dangerous weapon (Article 242 of Criminal Code).
Commenting on the fact on TV, the commentator asked a question: How do I assess this justice? Well, since this blog we will try to answer this question, as far as possible and, hopefully, with your help. I will not go into explaining what is a crime not guarantees of authenticity, etc, etc, but I want to focus on the issue of aggravating and extenuating circumstances, transforming the question as follows: "Allowing recover the loot to their victims in a game of rock, paper, scissors should be appreciated as an aggravating factor as a mitigating or should not have an effect? omit for reasons of space that the aggravating factors have to be expressly provided for in the Code.
1. Rating as an aggravating . The aggravating circumstances of the crime which, by their dangerous or harmful as they are, either the victim or to society (yes, I think everyone should use the "for" more frequently), deserve to be punished harder. Man, hardly be more dangerous rob you with a cutter to rob you with a cutter and then allow you to recover the stolen playing rock, paper, scissors, even if only in jest. It's true that you think "host, not only steals my purse but was messing up, but do not think this is sufficient reason to further punish the guilty.
2. Rating as a mitigating . The mitigating works a little differently than aggravating. Besides being the circumstances that reduce the danger of crime (see, for example, the CP 242.3) also go here all that affects the willingness of the offender and his attitude to crime (ved on 21 CP), such as confession . That said, it really is less dangerous than what we offer you these guys were offered? If we look at the possible outcomes of the game, ie a) wins and takes it all, b) lost and returns c) loses and takes it all, we see an option without the game (b) which is beneficial to the victims. The fact is that, if given the option b, but certainly other mitigating factor would be to return things and not to offer the opportunity to recover, which leads me to the third option. Imagine the situation if this was a mitigating factor:
Judge: - And the defendant is guilty of theft with mitigating the game of chance. You
(victim): - Hear, but If I stole my well, I had no phone and no wallet.
Judge: - Yeah, but you said expensive and does not cross a shame.
You: - But, but, but ...
Judge: - The meeting adjourned.
3. No rating . This option is more reasonable in my opinion. The very act of giving someone the option of retrieving their belongings (in the case of theft) in a game of chance not think I should have an effect on the sentence. This should only happen if the victim "wins", and if the punishment will be reduced by minimizing the injury and not having given the option to play. As shown in the example above the result is quite absurd.
Finally, how do you see yourselves? Any criminal will be encouraged to do a more in depth or to correct at some point? In any case, forgive me for the language, the f **** is this guy. Point
Geek of the Day: The new version of rock, paper, scissors called "rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock , and gives many turns as the original.
The news, published in El Punt de Girona, would become the following: guy three additional berths with a cutter and, once you have all your belongings, give them the opportunity to recover all game of rock, paper, scissors . As winner takes the loot, but this does not prevent the three boys he reported to the police, who soon will stop. The prosecutor asks for 4 ½ years in prison for a robbery with a dangerous weapon (Article 242 of Criminal Code).
Commenting on the fact on TV, the commentator asked a question: How do I assess this justice? Well, since this blog we will try to answer this question, as far as possible and, hopefully, with your help. I will not go into explaining what is a crime not guarantees of authenticity, etc, etc, but I want to focus on the issue of aggravating and extenuating circumstances, transforming the question as follows: "Allowing recover the loot to their victims in a game of rock, paper, scissors should be appreciated as an aggravating factor as a mitigating or should not have an effect? omit for reasons of space that the aggravating factors have to be expressly provided for in the Code.
1. Rating as an aggravating . The aggravating circumstances of the crime which, by their dangerous or harmful as they are, either the victim or to society (yes, I think everyone should use the "for" more frequently), deserve to be punished harder. Man, hardly be more dangerous rob you with a cutter to rob you with a cutter and then allow you to recover the stolen playing rock, paper, scissors, even if only in jest. It's true that you think "host, not only steals my purse but was messing up, but do not think this is sufficient reason to further punish the guilty.
2. Rating as a mitigating . The mitigating works a little differently than aggravating. Besides being the circumstances that reduce the danger of crime (see, for example, the CP 242.3) also go here all that affects the willingness of the offender and his attitude to crime (ved on 21 CP), such as confession . That said, it really is less dangerous than what we offer you these guys were offered? If we look at the possible outcomes of the game, ie a) wins and takes it all, b) lost and returns c) loses and takes it all, we see an option without the game (b) which is beneficial to the victims. The fact is that, if given the option b, but certainly other mitigating factor would be to return things and not to offer the opportunity to recover, which leads me to the third option. Imagine the situation if this was a mitigating factor:
Judge: - And the defendant is guilty of theft with mitigating the game of chance. You
(victim): - Hear, but If I stole my well, I had no phone and no wallet.
Judge: - Yeah, but you said expensive and does not cross a shame.
You: - But, but, but ...
Judge: - The meeting adjourned.
3. No rating . This option is more reasonable in my opinion. The very act of giving someone the option of retrieving their belongings (in the case of theft) in a game of chance not think I should have an effect on the sentence. This should only happen if the victim "wins", and if the punishment will be reduced by minimizing the injury and not having given the option to play. As shown in the example above the result is quite absurd.
Finally, how do you see yourselves? Any criminal will be encouraged to do a more in depth or to correct at some point? In any case, forgive me for the language, the f **** is this guy. Point
Geek of the Day: The new version of rock, paper, scissors called "rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock , and gives many turns as the original.
Soon more!
0 comments:
Post a Comment