Then why not jail-time?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Martin Shkreli jailed after Facebook post about Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter The_Fisher_King
- Start date
Then why not jail-time?
He might claim it was -- after the fact. People always find excuses for their poor behavior.
Only if it was a genuine offer. If it was a prank, what then?
Spank him with a wooden paddle for having reached an age above that of 11 without the sense to know when a prank is not a prank.
But why is that on him? Someone makes a joke (assuming he intended it as a joke) and someone else is stupid enough not to see it as a joke.
Surely there's enough doubt in this case about his intentions (to make a joke or a genuine offer/solicitation to assault) to hold fire? After all, we can't see into his brain/mind.
Quite, he may have been making a point about double standards.
We're talking about a guy whose track record shows he's a self-obsessed, vindictive, vicious little ─ ahm ─ tick. With his record of directed malice, I see no reason to give him the benefit of any doubt in such matters, not that I see much doubt here anyway.
He's effectively nuts.
Because he put it on the internet.
Frankly, if some deranged individual had really harmed Shkreli's intended victim he would be liable for hiring them, IMO. The internet is not some unfathomable place he can't be expected to understand.
Sometimes pranks come back to bite you in the butt.
Tom
I'm not convinced gaol time is/isn't required. I'd need to consider precedents, etc (and don't care enough about this to invest that time).
Basically, it comes down to severity. $5000 to steal hair is less acute than $100k to break her legs.
No doubt about that!
Augustus
…
He was on bail after being convicted so the burden of proof is pretty much reversed.
"Enough doubt" is enough to get your bail revoked.
I guess I'm questioning that.
The violation of any of the other conditions of bail may be sufficient to cause the revocation of bail. Some of these common conditions include:
- Abiding by a curfew
- Avoiding additional criminal activity
- Avoiding drug and alcohol use
- Participating in drug and alcohol testing
- Seeking gainful employment or maintaining current employment
- Complying with travel restrictions
- Avoiding the possession of weapons
- Keeping a certain distance from specific people or places
Augustus
…
Why? Bail for convicted criminals isn't a fundamental right. It may be granted in cases where they are judged to be no threat to the public based on certain conditions.
When you have a convicted criminal out on bail the benefit of the doubt therefore goes to protecting the public, not to keeping criminals out of jail. It is unrealistic to wait for a 2nd criminal conviction before revoking bail after all. A reasonable chance that a crime has been committed is sufficient to consider it in the public interest to return them to jail.
Do you believe there should be a whitelist of crimes you may commit while out on bail? or do you believe you should be allowed out until actually charged/convicted with a 2nd crime? (or something else?)
leibowde84
Veteran Member
It doesn't matter what his actual intent was. It only matters whether a reasonable person could think he was serious.
That would be the case if he said this over dinner with his friends. But he put it on the internet, with a $5000 dollar offer. That's more than just "reasonable" persons. It includes every freak with internet access who wants $5000.
And he knew that when he did it.
Tom
Have you ever in your vast experience ever seen something comparable
to the procuring of a hair bring certain payment of $5000? Would you
believe that if you had a Hillary hair, he'd pay up?
I wouldn't.
But there are some serious freaks out there and they have internet too. Look at the ones who post on RF!
Tom
Since a reasonable person wouldn't see the offer as serious, then
we should look at the likelihood of crazy people acting upon it.
Would they get past her massive protection detail?
Did the venue of the message have wide distribution to such crazies?
Did the message appear serious?
Nah!