|
Post by omega on Dec 27, 2016 14:26:14 GMT
Sounds like Maria showed bad judgement in an attempt to abuse loopholes in the law. The fact she was raising a child indicates her poor judgement was worse than it would have been if she didn't have the child. It may be unfair to you, but I can't argue with the verdict. The fact it happened at Christmas is unfortunate, but irrelevant to the case. If any judge were more lenient to women with children, it'd set a dangerous precedent, as well a criticism of discrimination on gender and maternal grounds. Just because someone is a main character doesn't mean they'll get a more lenient sentence. Then do it for both mothers and fathers. Then those with children would be perceived as having a better chance at a lenient sentence. In Ant-Man, Scott has a daughter but he still goes to prison, and has to earn his ex-wife's trust back just to see Cassie after his sentence is up, let alone work out custody privileges. Real life isn't going to let someone off because they had good intentions. Knowingly breaking the law is still breaking the law, no matter how good the reason. There are consequences, and that's what keeps the law from being useless.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 27, 2016 14:27:37 GMT
Because it's the responsibility of social services, not the court system, to deal with the child, Social services are hardly going to be a replacement for the boy's own mother. It would surely be cruel in real life to basically punish a four year old child. So under your law children are a literal get out of jail free card? That sounds like a policy ripe for abuse.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2016 14:35:50 GMT
Social services are hardly going to be a replacement for the boy's own mother. It would surely be cruel in real life to basically punish a four year old child. So under your law children are a literal get out of jail free card? That sounds like a policy ripe for abuse. I think we established a few months ago on the Brexit thread Dalekbuster has an....interesting interpretation of the legal system of the UK. Though on that thread he was on the opposite end of the spectrum to the almost comically mega-liberal of this thread. Nothing if not unpredictable!
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 27, 2016 22:15:44 GMT
Social services are hardly going to be a replacement for the boy's own mother. It would surely be cruel in real life to basically punish a four year old child. So under your law children are a literal get out of jail free card? That sounds like a policy ripe for abuse. Not for anything, but for things that hardly matter too much like sham marriages. Serious cases like murderers absolutely should be sent to prison over Christmas but in my book a mother who married a gay man so he could be with his gay other half in the UK should be knighted if anything! The law should be changed around sham marriages so those who do it with good intentions are awarded instead for being a good samaritan.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 27, 2016 22:29:12 GMT
So under your law children are a literal get out of jail free card? That sounds like a policy ripe for abuse. I think we established a few months ago on the Brexit thread Dalekbuster has an....interesting interpretation of the legal system of the UK. Though on that thread he was on the opposite end of the spectrum to the almost comically mega-liberal of this thread. Nothing if not unpredictable! I avoided the Brexit thread. The law can be harsh, but if it's selective then it doesn't have as much power.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 27, 2016 22:32:39 GMT
So under your law children are a literal get out of jail free card? That sounds like a policy ripe for abuse. Not for anything, but for things that hardly matter too much like sham marriages. Serious cases like murderers absolutely should be sent to prison over Christmas but in my book a mother who married a gay man so he could be with his gay other half in the UK should be knighted if anything! The law should be changed around sham marriages so those who do it with good intentions are awarded instead for being a good samaritan. Then that would be abused, people getting into sham marriages because they know they won't face any repercussions. Like I mentioned before, it'd set a dangerous legal precedent and go against the impartiality the judge is supposed to have. It's the 21st century, not Ancient Greece where the one who puts on the best show wins. We don't have wasps in the jury anymore.
|
|
|
Post by dalekbuster523finish on Dec 27, 2016 23:34:40 GMT
Not for anything, but for things that hardly matter too much like sham marriages. Serious cases like murderers absolutely should be sent to prison over Christmas but in my book a mother who married a gay man so he could be with his gay other half in the UK should be knighted if anything! The law should be changed around sham marriages so those who do it with good intentions are awarded instead for being a good samaritan. Then that would be abused, people getting into sham marriages because they know they won't face any repercussions. Like I mentioned before, it'd set a dangerous legal precedent and go against the impartiality the judge is supposed to have. It's the 21st century, not Ancient Greece where the one who puts on the best show wins. We don't have wasps in the jury anymore. Not if they asked for proof that it was with good intentions.
|
|
|
Post by omega on Dec 28, 2016 1:34:14 GMT
Then that would be abused, people getting into sham marriages because they know they won't face any repercussions. Like I mentioned before, it'd set a dangerous legal precedent and go against the impartiality the judge is supposed to have. It's the 21st century, not Ancient Greece where the one who puts on the best show wins. We don't have wasps in the jury anymore. Not if they asked for proof that it was with good intentions. Isn't that what the road to hell is paved with? Besides, what qualifies as a good intention can vary from person to person. There are people who feel that even the most heinous acts are justified, or even ends justifying the means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2016 8:01:07 GMT
So under your law children are a literal get out of jail free card? That sounds like a policy ripe for abuse. Not for anything, but for things that hardly matter too much like sham marriages. Serious cases like murderers absolutely should be sent to prison over Christmas but in my book a mother who married a gay man so he could be with his gay other half in the UK should be knighted if anything! The law should be changed around sham marriages so those who do it with good intentions are awarded instead for being a good samaritan. See that's a whole different debate. It sounds like what you're actually upset about is that it's illegal to help gay people escape from homophobic regimes in this way. Perhaps your opening statement at the beginning of the thread should have been about whether the law as it stands is fair or should be changed.
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Dec 28, 2016 9:28:20 GMT
Dunno what planet dalekbuster lives on but i want to visit it .
|
|