h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Stepping over the wreckage...

>>We do have a two tier system of justice: people who can go about their business not harassing and inconveniencing others, parking their cars inconsiderately, swearing at people, ripping off their limbs...

But should we? Should our justice be as crude and unsophisticated as all-or-nothing? 'Step out of line - we'll go to town on you.'

We've never done that before. Our approach has been more nuanced than that, with different levels of retribution (in criminal justice terms, 'tariffs') set in advance, to fit different types of misdemeanour, taking into account circumstances, and deliberately independent of the mood of the crowd on any given day.

Does the fact that the technology now makes the one-size-fits-all nuclear option easy mean that we should do that?

"I don't think the photographer comes out of it smelling of roses"

I think the cameraman is a hero.

(a) he took a non-confrontational action that had a realistic possibility of dealing with the immediate problem - any *civilised* person would have experienced shame on seeing themselves being videoed, and would have simply removed themselves from the situation and quickly as possible, and if possible apologised while doing so.

(b) he remained amazingly calm in the face of really nasty, aggressive behaviour

(c) he took down the video from Youtube when it went viral and has been clear on there that he felt some of the comments were unacceptable.

He's a gentleman. He's also, you might note, so far, anonymous. Well done sir.

SoRB:

>>Frankly, I can't believe anyone is trying to defend her.

Maybe nobody is. But maybe she and her husband were having a bad day. Maybe they're not actually menaces to society. Maybe they don't deserve to have their lives ruined.

*I don't know any of this*. Maybe they have a dozen bodies buried beneath their patio and deserve all they get. But you don't know either and neither do the keyboard warriors.

Dunno. Read up on life in 16thC Geneva and tell me if you really think that enforced good public behaviour is really quite the thing.

Sorry. Film. I am paying attention, honest.

I am obviously not keeping up and admit to not going through all the backlog

I watched the video and thought the woman and the bloke that was with her behaved appallingly and the bloke with the camera does have the 'right' to film her and put it on youtube as far as I can make out.

Doesn't make it right to do so.

I am not defending her or her behaviour but the responce to it is totally disproportionate and intrusive

And why do people want to do that, namey, shamey, judgey, uploady stuff, it is bloody self righteous and makes me gag and personally I wouldn't have done it because I think it would be wrong to do so

Anyway this is all too much for me of a morning so back to and a i think

>>I think the cameraman is a hero.

Oh, come on! If he were filming my car, even if I'd parked it inconsiderately (I might have had my reasons), I'd have thought him a busybody tw*t. Not saying I'd have reacted like Shop Lady and Mr Shop Lady. But I'd still have thought he was a tw*t - even if I knew I was in the wrong.

You have a laudably clear view on morality, though, SoRB.

And today's reading is John 8:7.




FULL DISCLOSURE: My views are slightly skewed because my neighbours had similar personalities to Camera Man. They refused to accept my explanation that I had a circle op paper attached to my windscreen that entitled me to sometimes park outside their precious home. It got very silly.

Your post, EtB, causes me to think of a couple of things peripheral to the subject line, but vaguely relevant.

First: I do think a large part of the reason for the synchronised throat-jumping this woman is currently being subjected to is to do with the fact that most of us see behaviour like hers, and worse, every day, and know for a fact it goes unpunished. We see habitual criminals given community service for strings of burglaries. We see bankers responsible for the misery of millions paid millions in bonuses. And conversely, we see people who make jokes online losing their livelihoods and going to prison.

There's a meme doing the rounds currently that points out that if SOPA passed, you could go to prison for five year for downloading Michael Jackson's music, while the man responsible for killing him was jailed for four.

Read a police blog or two, and feel the frustration of the people at the sharp end, their sense of impotence that while they can and do catch the people who do bad things, the rest of the system ensure that bad things hardly ever happen to them. When faith in the justice system fails, we should not be surprised that people will take matters into their own hands when they can.

For instance: take a look at that video. Make a list of the offences it might be reasonable to think Mrs. Duncan committed over the course of those few minutes. Careless driving? Maybe. Driving without due care and attention? Possibly. Harrassment? Assault? Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice? Breach of the peace? Obstruction? Now - do you suppose even for a moment that she'll be arrested, much less charged, for any offence at all, despite the video? I doubt it. And everyone *knows* this to be the case. Everyone *knows* that people like this get away with this shit every. Single. Day. And today is the day they get to have some payback, on just one of these odious swine, and for people having a bad time in a bad economy, payback clearly feels good.

I'd like to say I feel sorry for Mr and Mrs Duncan, but it wasn't *just* blind chance that made them the lightning rod for public feeling - it was their own horrible actions. Fsck 'em both.

Second: the "nuclear option". Criminal sanction has a number of functions: punishment, retribution, rehabilitation, and security. When someone's found guilty, they should experience something negative as punishment. This should also act as society's cathartic retribution against them. They should, if possible, be made a better person and made less likely to repeat offend. And - and this is an important one - society should be protected from their depredations. If someone burgles houses or beats women or steals cars, they should be locked up - not just for retribution or punishment or to maybe educate them, but importantly because while they're locked up, they can't burgle houses, beat women or steal cars. And I'm a big fan of the idea of giving crims a couple of free goes - three months in prison for a first burglary, twelve months for a second, say - and then, on a third conviction, giving up on the idea of rehabilitation. On a third conviction, it should be clear that they didn't take the hint the first two times. Third conviction for a violent or invasive offence? Thirty years, no reductions, no parole. Yes, it would be expensive. But imagine how much money you'd save on home insurance - after about five years every habitual burglar in the country would be inside. I assume you're not going to tell me that other, non-crims would take up a life of crime to keep the average up... or are you? I've never understood how that works, that whole "if you lock up criminals crime doesn't go down". Maybe you can explain it.



Blimey, that went a bit offtopic, didn't it?

i will just disregard you mean-spirited attitude
and just answer your post

no i didnt see her drive down that road
when the video opened it showed this car
nose into some men at work stuff
and it was either too dark to see her in the car
or my computer is old and not "cool" and with it and up to the moment
or i have seeing problems
all of the above that YOU dont know and you should just be nicer to people, hoovooloo
you dont know what they are going through

why
for all you know
they may be having a brain melt down similar to the one you appear to be having

now... wouldnt you like to be treated with courtesy and consideration when you feel all grouchy and mean like this?
i am sorry i wasnt nice to you but
well
sometimes i just get fed up

You know what - if he'd filmed MY car, I'd have thought him a busybody tw*t.

I wouldn't have *told* him that. And I'd have been more concerned that the only reason he was filming me in the first place was that I'd been an even bigger tw*t.

And I've always hated John 8:7. It's an argument for never punishing anyone for anything.

Hands up - I'm NOT without "sin". But if you burgle my house, and I get the opportunity, I will stone you to death with a song in my heart, and I'll cast the first stone and the next and the next and not hesitate for a second. What, I should ignore the offences of others unless I'm perfect myself? Do me a flava.

fluffykerfuffle: h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/brunel/140?thread=14089475" >F19585?thread=8289475&skip=76&show=2

SoRB.

>>First: I do think a large part of the reason for the synchronised throat-jumping this woman is currently being subjected to is to do with the fact that most of us see behaviour like hers, and worse, every day, and know for a fact it goes unpunished. We see habitual criminals given community service for strings of burglaries. We see bankers responsible for the misery of millions paid millions in bonuses. And conversely, we see people who make jokes online losing their livelihoods and going to prison.


No, not really. It's just people being dicks, snug and anonymous behind their keyboards. There could be any number of reasons why they're being dickish. It could be the reasons you've advanced. It could be state of the economy. It could be that they've not been getting any lately.

>>Hands up - I'm NOT without "sin". But if you burgle my house, and I get the opportunity, I will stone you to death with a song in my heart, and I'll cast the first stone and the next and the next and not hesitate for a second. What, I should ignore the offences of others unless I'm perfect myself? Do me a flava


Well, if you say so. But can you see why we might expect you to be given a very, very long sentence for that? And if it were with a song in your hart, we'd expect it to be indeterminate and served in a secure psychiatric facility.

Nobody is asking for crime to be ignored. But in a sane society you don't lash out uncontrolledly at every infraction.

okay i am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by reposting those two ...posts
i am reading fine
and i saw the video

i am on a limited data feed so i stopped watching before it was over
but what you are so outraged (it seems) (and inappropriately i might add) about...
that i so unforgivably don't know every street in ...what town? is that London?
and how your system works
and that when you say 'parked" you dont mean what most people on the planet mean
parked = car stopped and off, driver usually absent
and i READ here a remark about her trying to stock her store, unloading...
so i just assumed her car was there and she was in her store
oh
sorry
shop
sorry sorry sorry
please dont hurt me

aaaanyway

no
i never do things so inconsiderate as that
i have made mistakes
but never on purpose
and chances are if that had been me in that car
then i would have needed and very much appreciated some help
because i would either be sleep driving, having a heart attack, or maybe a ministroke
you
just
dont
know

period

and i would as i said go over to her car and ask if i could help her
because obviously she needed help
as you all noticed she didnt have a clue
so why not accept that and lovingly try to help her get a clue

maybe her mother just died

"can you see why we might expect you to be given a very, very long sentence for that? "

Depends what we're talking about when you say "that". I said stoning to death to tie in with the Biblical reference.

To make it more realistic, let's say I wake to find you in my house. I will take whatever steps necessary to quickly render you unconscious or dead, and I don't much care which, on the grounds I don't know and don't *want* to know your intentions, capabilities, equipment or personnel strength. If you're "just" there to rob me, rubbish at fighting, unarmed and alone - unlucky. I wouldn't take any chances, and I don't think it's reasonable for the criminal justice system to expect me to. I don't think it's reasonable to pursue a burglar down the street and execute him, but if you've the chance to shoot him in the back as he's leaving your house, I think you absolutely should - you've no guarantee he's not going to come back tooled up with his mates in the next thirty seconds.

And I was pretty clear that I don't support lashing out uncontrolled at the first infraction. Reasonable punishment the first two times. Most of the rest of your life in prison the third time, as it seems you can't take a hint. And by "prison", I don't mean the video-game equipped Best Westerns some modern prisons appear to be.

Indeed.

And if, instead, some tw*t had jumped out with a camera and started filming you, you might have reacted badly.

And if he'd carried on filming you, it would have escalated and got out of hand and you'd have perhaps done and said some extremely regrettable things.

This would not necessarily make you the Antichrist.

You would not necessarily deserve to risk your livelihood.

*Not necessarily*. You might be someone who goes about doing this sort of thing to random members of the public. Is there evidence of this?

fluffykerfuffle:

"i am reading fine[...] ...what town? is that London?"

You are reading fine, eh? OK...

Would you like to take a run at reading the subject line of this thread?

I really don't think I need to respond to anything else from you.

>>To make it more realistic, let's say I wake to find you in my house. I will take whatever steps necessary to quickly render you unconscious or dead, and I don't much care which, on the grounds I don't know and don't *want* to know your intentions, capabilities, equipment or personnel strength. If you're "just" there to rob me, rubbish at fighting, unarmed and alone - unlucky. I wouldn't take any chances, and I don't think it's reasonable for the criminal justice system to expect me to. I don't think it's reasonable to pursue a burglar down the street and execute him, but if you've the chance to shoot him in the back as he's leaving your house, I think you absolutely should - you've no guarantee he's not going to come back tooled up with his mates in the next thirty seconds.

Well there I disagree.

I can *understand* why burglars are killed, and don't necessarily blame the killers.

But it is wholly unreasonable to kill someone unless you know they are posing a risk and to shoot someone in the back because you've been taken in by the fantasy of packs of burglars waiting to band together and assault you is plain, old murder. You've been reading Inspector Fascist again, haven't you? You do know he makes it up, right?

Jaysus - I've >>no guarantee<< that you won't somehow track me down and come and shoot me. It's possible - but very very unlikely.

oh
that is hilarious!!

in my defense...
after the first time...
who reads the subject line?

okay okay
you got me on that
but its not about reading
its about... something else
i think spaciness... or blondeness...

Be fair, SoRB. Bath *could* be a suburb of London.

Ed. Sorry - don't get post 95. To which post is it replying?

I think I said - if some guy had jumped out with a camera and started filming me with my car in an obstructive position - I'd move my car. And if he'd carried on filming me, I'd have driven away - wonderful things, cars. Isn't that what most people would do? Wouldn't you just hope he wasn't an off duty policeman or something, given that by definition the only reason said busybody was filming was that you were in the wrong in the first place?