Dont do the crime if you can't do the time

steddyeddy

Everytime there's a conviction and harsh sentence based on some crime like possession of marijuana or whatever people say the phrase that makes up the thread title. Is it really this simple?

It makes me think some people hold the law in too high regard and forget that the law was made for man not man for the law. Is the law there to punish people or is it there to benefit society? I mean go to some countries and it's against the law to be homosexual. Is that a case of don't do the crime ect ect?

I think it's a bit rich citing the perpetrator of the crime as being solely responsible for getting punished for a stupid law.

Magico Gonzalez

steddyeddy wrote: »

Everytime there's a conviction and harsh sentence based on some crime like possession of marijuana or whatever people say the phrase that makes up the thread title. Is it really this simple?

It makes me think some people hold the law in too high regard and forget that the law was made for man not man for the law. Is the law there to punish people or is it there to benefit society? I mean go to some countries and it's against the law to be homosexual. Is that a case of don't do the crime ect ect?

3 questions there.

1. Yes.
2. It should punish people for the benefit of society, not always the case.
3. If you want to do the time to prove a point and highlight an unjust law, by all means do. Society will eventually praise you for it, however if "insert thread title"

Fairly straightforward.

smash

It's such a ****ty attitude. You see it in the motors forum All the time. Someone could be 5kmh over the limit and you'll hear "If you didn't want points then you shouldn't have been speeding" oh just fcuk off you insufferable git!

average_runner

smash wrote: »

It's such a ****ty attitude. You see it in the motors forum All the time. Someone could be 5kmh over the limit and you'll hear "If you didn't want points then you shouldn't have been speeding" oh just fcuk off you insufferable git!

Tell that to the person that lost a love one

Junkyard Tom

Hitler.

Magico Gonzalez

smash wrote: »

It's such a ****ty attitude. You see it in the motors forum All the time. Someone could be 5kmh over the limit and you'll hear "If you didn't want points then you shouldn't have been speeding" oh just fcuk off you insufferable git!

I think this above a better example of a sh1tty attitude.

Sure, I only broke the rules a wee bit, let me off.

Speeding laws save lives. I'd rather they were correctly applied than have to deal with the massive headache of selective interpretation because someone doesnt like being reprimanded.

3 points is a minor tribulation. It's not like your being sent to the Joy.

smash

average_runner wrote: »

Tell that to the person that lost a love one

Tell it to my arse! You don't need to attach emotional blackmail to every scenario in an attempt to gather empathy.

OneOfThem

Some people have very very lazy minds. Much less stressful on the noggin to just think black and white, leave nuance at the door and repeat catchphrases. It's a self comfort thing I think.

ancapailldorcha

Why would anyone want to visit a backwater kip where homosexuality is regarded as criminal?

Turtyturd

Think you answered your own question in the last few lines OP. What's considered criminal is in constant flux. It's fine to apply 'if you can't do the time don't do the crime' to some crimes as they will always go against the social conscience but I don't think it really applies to some of the more trivial things in modern society especially when they are shifting towards being legalized.

Magico Gonzalez

OneOfThem wrote: »

Some people have very very lazy minds. Much less stressful on the noggin to just think black and white, leave nuance at the door and repeat catchphrases. It's a self comfort thing I think.

Nuance is necessary for applying speeding laws ? Some sort of higher intellectual capacity needed to understand why we should let people off every now and then? Just because, what, they asked nicely, some extenuating circumstances that can never be proved?

Tolerance limits are a farce. If you will give 10% tolerance in a 30 mph zone then the max limit is 33mph. What's the point, change the limit to 33.

I've been caught speeding, hated it, but I paid my fine and didnt do 36 in a 30 zone again. Lesson learnt. No big deal.

steddyeddy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why would anyone want to visit a backwater kip where homosexuality is regarded as criminal?

Well I lived there. I'm just pointing out the implications of living by a mantra "don't do the crime ect ect". It justifies the fact that there are some really stupid laws and some even worse punishments.

DamagedTrax

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I lived there. I'm just pointing out the implications of living by a mantra "don't do the crime ect ect". It justifies the fact that there are some really stupid laws and some even worse punishments.

For whatever reason, some areas of society and certain organisations have a vested interest in demonising various groupings of people (be it based on medical needs, sexual choices etc).

They are parasites that cannot create to provide for themselves and need the misfortune of others to find their avenues of profit.

My name is URL

Some people are just happy to be pathetic, unthinking lickspittles

I actually feel a bit sorry for anyone with such outlooks and attitudes.

There's plenty of them on this site, mind

steddyeddy

Reality: The local barman is responsible for destroying far more lives through the sale of what would now be classified as a class A drug than someone selling marijuana.

The law: It's far far worse to smoke marijuana.

In order words people should stop letting the law dictate their moral compass.

Junkyard Tom

steddyeddy wrote: »

Reality: The local barman is responsible for destroying far more lives through the sale of what would now be classified as a class A drug than someone selling marijuana.

Drug abuse is bad. Smoking too much marigoldawanna isn't good for you either.

What we should focus on is the immorality of, and harm caused by, punishing peaceful people for their choice of buzz.

Jayop

Putting an insanely severe punishment on someone for possession of a tiny amount of a harmless drug while the minister with authority for these things is releasing statements saying we need to decriminalise users is madness in my opinion. Sure the law hasn't yet changed, but the severity of those punishment isn't in keeping with what society as at large deem acceptable.

Before someone says who am I to say what society deems, I'd point you to the recent survey in the IT that had 93% of people voting that Cannabis should be legalised.

average_runner

smash wrote: »

Tell it to my arse! You don't need to attach emotional blackmail to every scenario in an attempt to gather empathy.

And you need to be a fool to try to justify something.

smash

average_runner wrote: »

And you need to be a fool to try to justify something.

If your point requires you to pull on heart strings in order to gain support then it's not worth making because it can't stand on its own merit.

sonny.knowles

What were you changed with, OP?

steddyeddy

sonny.knowles wrote: »

What were you changed with, OP?

Never charged with anything SK. I started the thread because I lived in countries were homosexuality is illegal. You get the same muppets there defending the law and punishment by insisting "if you can't do the time don't do the crime".

Azalea

It's not incorrect in fairness - if you know what the consequences of something are but do it anyway and get caught, you can't really complain.

However, that doesn't mean people can't criticise punishments that they think are too harsh. And when people stand up to an unjust system by breaking those unjust laws (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Civil Rights in the U.S., Apartheid) they deserve to be applauded for their bravery. There'd be no moving forward from those systems if "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" was not discarded as being a bit too black and white at times.

TheNobleKipper

As always context is important. There are times when I read about sentences that I find ridiculously harsh, and at other times I'd wish someone was actually locked up for a while while they walk free. The problem is not only the selection of offenses that we deem punishable/ illegal but also how they are dealt with because the punishments can be so incredibly arbitrary. E.G: Personally, I couldn't care less if someone was caught 20 times with a small amount of weed on them. On the other hand I'd prefer to see someone dealing with the consequences of having driven under the influence of any substance. However, I need to accept that the law might punish the latter person harder than the first one, even though I find it ridiculous.

Austria!

Azalea wrote: »

It's not incorrect in fairness - if you know what the consequences of something are but do it anyway and get caught, you can't really complain.

Same with being knocked down by a joyrider. You knew the risk once you stepped out of your house to go to the shops.

Depending on the odds of being caught in the first place and the variation in sentencing for the same crime, it's not really correct to say you know the consequences. And that's just for things you know which are illegal, as no one knows every law.

When you see the injustice of a poor law, is glibly pontificating really a better option than showing compassion?

Cienciano

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Hitler.

That post made me laugh way more than it should have

Azalea

Austria! wrote: »

Same with being knocked down by a joyrider. You knew the risk once you stepped out of your house to go to the shops.

Depending on the odds of being caught in the first place and the variation in sentencing for the same crime, it's not really correct to say you know the consequences. And that's just for things you know which are illegal, as no one knows every law.

When you see the injustice of a poor law, is glibly pontificating really a better option than showing compassion?

The joyrider analogy isn't great as the joyrider is in the wrong and it's reasonable to expect no joyriders, but the part of my post that you quoted isn't all I said - there's another paragraph under it.

Shenshen

The reasonable and adult thing to do when you disagree with a law is to attempt to get that law changed, not to break it and then complain if you're being punished.

rubadub

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why would anyone want to visit a backwater kip where homosexuality is regarded as criminal?

We had plenty of tourists here when homosexuality was criminal here 20 odd years ago.

When people do use the phrase they often to not even bother to say if they agree with the law or punishment, if not are they not annoyed with taxpayers money being pissed away on all the garda, judges, prison etc time being wasted.

Cienciano

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why would anyone want to visit a backwater kip where homosexuality is regarded as criminal?

Homosexuality being regarded as a crime would definitely not effect my decision to go to a country.

Austria!

Azalea wrote: »

The joyrider analogy isn't great as the joyrider is in the wrong and it's reasonable to expect no joyriders, but the part of my post that you quoted isn't all I said - there's another paragraph under it.

While it is reasonable to expect not to get knocked down, it's reasonable statistically not to expect to get charged for personal cannabis use too, for example.

I agree with your last paragraph, but I see it as contradicting your first paragraph. If you say people can't complain if you know the consequences of something and get caught, how can people criticise punishments for being too harsh? What would people be complaining about if not a harsh punishment?

Azalea

Well I think its possible to hold both views, don't think they necessarily contradict each other. What I mean is simply that the phrase isn't incorrect - but I wouldn't use it myself still though.