It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Graffiti girl jailed for first offence

page: 18
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
This girl is practically a terrorist.

I think she should be sent to Guantanamo in order to protect society.

People like this ruin it for all of us.

I seriously don't think a life sentence is out of order here - especially given the circumstances of this case.

Despicable, Really.



I don't know if you were being serious, I don't really care, your post made me laugh but it does raise an interesting point.

Outrageous punishments:

String her up over a chilli fire and flay her alive!

Cut off her hands!

Poke out her eyes!

Super glue her fingers into her palms!

Life imprisonment!

Brand her skin with a hot iron saying "vandal"!

A Week in the stocks!

March her naked through town with her ankles in Irons while holding a sign saying "I am a delinquent"!

Now she didnt get any of these as a punishment, she got 3 months in a (most likely) low security prison. What if the punishments above were the norm and we were talking about how lenient this punishment was?

For myself it does seem a bit much but I wish that relatively more serious crimes had sentences proportionally similar to what she received.

Otherwise we might as well go all medieval "eye for an eye" or, on the other extreme, make people write a sincere letter of apology to the victim or victim's family




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
And the odds of her ever commiting the same offence again just became............1,000 to 1.

Message sent, received, and understood.

Here in Phoenix, a pair of "taggers" were caught spray painting in a local park - they got 2 years each.

If you're not hard on this kind of thing you'll end up like the UK pretty darned fast.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
broke the law and has to do 3 months "hard time". The "alternative" news on ATS is sooooo alternative.And if their jail system is anything like ours she will be out in a month and a half. Really what the hell is this doing on ATS? somthing like this belongs on FOX.

[edit on by YoungStalin]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
The store is asking $200 for the damages. In the United States $200 would be handled at a small claims court such as Judge Judy. The proper punishment would have been $200 plus cleaning the graffiti. I don't see what three months in jail would accomplish that couldn't be accomplished with paying and cleaning the damage.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Its a simple do as I say not as I do issue.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
a) that's either sarcasm or a lie, no?


Nope, I haven't committed any crimes (nor have I been arrested for anything) and I'm completely and utterly sin-free as I'm an atheist so I'm not bound by silly religious convictions and other made up stuff.




b) your taxes ARE paying for the states inappropriate and faulty solution to this 'delinquency' issue. 3 months jail time - 40 grand. Cost to remove grafitti - a bottle of soap and a rag, less than 2 bucks.


I know they do -- I should have specified that better -- I don't see why my taxes have to pay for "re-offending" morons who don't get punished more harshly than this care free, hugs & kisses crowd types. The system doesn't work with letting kids go and giving them warnings. Nothing changes apart from them knowing they can get away with it.



I think you have also missed where EVERYONE who has disagreed with your assessment of the appropriatness of the jail term suggests she 'remove the vandalism' AND 'pay up'

Man you got it back to front across the board!


Look, you don't like people getting harsh treatment, that's fine. You want to hug these offenders and try to 'help' them with love and affection? You'll get nutted and have your wallet and car keys taken. Sadly, I *know* wht some of the youths of today are truly like. And to say it's scarey is an understatement. And this girl, while not a hardened criminal, deserves the full power of the law to show her that just because you're not an adult doesn't mean we can't show you what's instore if you're caught for crimes later on.

But hey, you have your opinion, I have mine.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 


"You want to hug these offenders and try to 'help' them with love and affection? You'll get nutted and have your wallet and car keys taken"

These offenders?

There was only one Girl and it was her first offence...

Nice Try!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
Nope, I haven't committed any crimes (nor have I been arrested for anything) and I'm completely and utterly sin-free as I'm an atheist so I'm not bound by silly religious convictions and other made up stuff.



I call LIES! Unless you are 1 year old and incapable of even knowing what right and wrong is, then I find it impossible to believe you have never done anything wrong in your life. To say that you are 'sin-free' doesn't have to mean religious in nature, it means that you believe you have never done anything wrong in your life,

Your credibility has reached an all time low of NONE AT ALL.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
These offenders?

There was only one Girl and it was her first offence...

Nice Try!




Ughh.. "These" used as an impersonal pronoun in a plural sense. Yes it was one girl -- I was referring to "those who offend" in general.


Get a life mate, and stop being so pedantic



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrytiesTo say that you are 'sin-free' doesn't have to mean religious in nature, it means that you believe you have never done anything wrong in your life


Correct. And there's the key word. "believe".

And that's what every single one of you base your existence on -- belief in something, anything.

I can't help it if mine are more liberal than yours



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
But hey, you have your opinion, I have mine.


You have your opinion, I have mine and he has his. I think you are a liar, and Exuberant was making a valid point that the topic of this thread is the FIRST TIME OFFENDER who got three months jail for writing her name on a wall - we are not talking about every offender everywhere.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme

Look, you don't like people getting harsh treatment, that's fine. You want to hug these offenders and try to 'help' them with love and affection? You'll get nutted and have your wallet and car keys taken. Sadly, I *know* wht some of the youths of today are truly like. And to say it's scarey is an understatement. And this girl, while not a hardened criminal, deserves the full power of the law to show her that just because you're not an adult doesn't mean we can't show you what's instore if you're caught for crimes later on.

But hey, you have your opinion, I have mine.


Who said we need to hug this young woman and give her "love and affection" for her crime? How is making her pay the $200 for the damages equivalent to hugging her?

Are you saying that if we make her pay for the damages that she'll steal your wallet and car keys? How did you come to that conclusion? Do you know her?

I think making her pay for the damages and making her clean it is enough to show her what's in store for crimes later on. It's cheaper for the community too.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by noonebutme
But hey, you have your opinion, I have mine.


You have your opinion, I have mine and he has his. I think you are a liar, and Exuberant was making a valid point that the topic of this thread is the FIRST TIME OFFENDER who got three months jail for writing her name on a wall - we are not talking about every offender everywhere.


I don't care if you think that or not. Sorry (shrug).

I've not broken the law. I haven't killed, stolen, vandalised or sped in my car. What else can I say?

And I still maintain the point -- so what if it's a "first time offense" ? Why should the law be any more lenient. The offender knew it was a crime and knew it was wrong and was caught.

Why should she receive nothing less than the maximum the law has to enforce? Perhaps getting the full forceof the law is what "first timers" need.

And not hugs & kisses.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 


Well, you stick to your basement/armchair judgement of someone you have absolutely no idea about like you are, and I will continue to explore other options that do not involve making the same continual mistake of thinking that sending someone to jail, for a first time offence, will stop them from reoffending.

You need to look at the statistics of how many people who have spent time in jail actually reoffend. It's quite a large percentage value. Anyone who thinks that jailing people for minor offences is the right thing to do is still living in the dark ages.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
I've not broken the law. I haven't killed, stolen, vandalised or sped in my car. What else can I say?


You are either very naieve, or ignorant, or lying, or exceptionally well read.

I wonder which country you live in?

If it's the UK, then you most likely break the law at least every sunday if you don't practice archery, every xmas if you eat mince pies on that day, any time you tobogganed on ice or snow. If you ever placed a postage stamp upside down you are guilty of treason.

If you live in the US or most western countries, then you would need to be fully versed in hundreds of thousands of laws, both state and federal, in order to honestly make that statement.

Many laws are just dumb. Even more 'punishments' are even dumber. This is one of those cases.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


I will; it's comfy and warm and while I'm in it I'm King s**t of t*rd Island.

However, I'll be a little more reasonable.

It would be nice to see some stats on the re-offending ratio of convicted criminals in Australia. And what effect imprisonment (or whatever the full extent of the law is in relation to the crime committed) has on said individuals.

And you're probably right -- *some* people might learn from simply being caught and given a suspended sentence in lieu of 'repairing' the damages. Though my experience suggests otherwise. From what I've experienced, the mentality of *some* young offenders these days, in my area, know that the courts are too busy and full of serial rapists, murders and whatnot so they are much more likely to have their sentence lowered or instead given a community service (as about 70% never bother showing up) or don't have the funds to pay for the criminal dmgs they cause. Instead they get Anti-Social Behaviour Orders which mean nothing and are 'trophies' to some.

So what's wrong with the punishment? Too harsh? Too lenient? What's the half-way mark?

I'm of the opinion that if you're rightfully convicted for a crime, you do the time. Period. And in this case from the OP, the girl also pay for and do the cleaning. Harsh? Sure. Reasonable? Sure, why not.

In this case with the girl, she may get out and think, "You know what, screw them for imprisoning me, I didn't do anything serious - it's not like I killed someone. I'll show them, now I'll be a serious ". Possibly.

Or she may fully understand that, "Damn, all this just for vandalism? It's not worth it. I'm going to change my ways". Again possible.

My main point is, as a member of the social structure I get very annoyed when I see first time offenders who have committed a crime that affects other people getting away with it or having suspended sentences or lenient judgements simply because they are young and it's their first time.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
If it's the UK, then you most likely break the law at least every sunday if you don't practice archery, every xmas if you eat mince pies on that day, any time you tobogganed on ice or snow. If you ever placed a postage stamp upside down you are guilty of treason.


Ok, you have me there. I don't practice archery. I'm happy to report myself to my local police station, however I don't think they'll want to do anything about it seeing as how my actions have not harmed nor caused damage to anyone or anything. (which is the differentiating point in my criminal activity and that of the Oz girl)

But apart from that I don't like mince pies, I don't toboggan and have never placed a stamp upside down on an envelope.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Chiming in a bit late here . . . but I am simply horrified at the number of people who support this punishment. I cannot comprehend how someone could think putting a bit of paint on a wall without permission deserves a punishment of 90 days in prison and a permanent criminal record. Some 'broken windows theory' advocates are sure to start sprouting C.P.T.E.D. nonsense, and yes, I completely understand that graffiti is a crime for which there is no real fast fix, but once again, 3 months in the slammer for putting your name on a wall?
I told my girlfriend about this, who is the same age as the girl in the story, and was once again shocked by how indifferent she was to the brutality of the sentencing. First off, graffiti surely does not warrant such a lengthy jail sentence on its own, regardless of any other fact. But when you put this 3 month sentence side-by-side with the piss poor punishments handed out to people who have committed heinous crimes such as rape, spousal abuse, or unprovoked assault, and who get jack all jail time to none at all, then the jail term at the centre of all this just becomes a sick joke.

Perhaps I'm slightly lenient because I am not a graffiti Nazi. I positively enjoy seeing what people put up on walls along train tracks, and I will paw through a book on graffiti subculture with earnest if I come across one. I know some people see graffiti as a blight upon this perfect planet which must be stamped out with utmost haste and abandon, it would seem, but I cannot see extremities such as that being necessary.
Personally, I hate tags. Stupid little 4 second spray jobs that require no effort, have no artistic merit, and are usually done in the stupidest of places. This form of graffiti, done by drop kick school children who cannot create a real picture, is the bane of real graffiti artists because it stirs the masses into a fervour of hate, which spreads over onto legitimate illegitimate works of art.

I dunno, maybe I've just been softened from living in Melbourne, but I don't see real graffiti as a crime that warrants punishment. Tagging? Sure, do something to stop 'em doing it again, but 3 months is excessive, and it's scary to think that such prison terms could carry over to people actually creating art, doing something that is technically illegal but which brightens up the daily commute of millions, without one person suffering.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


Well said mate, could not have put it better myself.

I am not an advocate of 'tagging' either - it's silly and lacks imagination and is an eyesore, but I certainly do not think that this girl should have received a 3 month sentence for it - especially being a first time offender. I think anyone who agrees with this punishment is no more than an armchair/basement judge who really should look out the window and maybe Google that big round thing in the sky - I'll give you a hint it's called the sun.

[edit on 4/2/2009 by Kryties]




top topics



 
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join