The logic of our legal system: OJ Simpson - not guilty. Casey Anthony - not guilty. 14 year old girl downloading last night's episode of Glee - There's a special place in Hell for people like you, amirite?
Pretty sure that doesn't happen. I called a kid a faggot way back in middle school and he stabbed me with his pencil and then I got suspended, yet he got off free because he was just "defending" himself.
Except since the American government is attempting to censor the entire innocent, people in all countries will now get in trouble for this. Hence the our.
They're not trying to do that and they can't do that, if you're saying this because of Kim Schmitz, then the reason he got arrested even if he was in New Zealand (outside of US jurisdiction), is because his servers were in the United States. But had he not been stupid enough to put his servers in the US, the US government would have no authority to take him down
Chrome is telling me to correct spelling of New Zealand... how does everyone else spell it?
Innocent until proven guilty. I understand what OP is saying, but if you compare the crimes you'd probably find in most cases that's it's easier to prove if someone illegally downloaded something than if they murdered someone. That being said, the punishment differs for these crimes. Of course, I don't agree that anyone who downloads illegal music should have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars, but it's less of a penalty than death. There wasn't enough evidence to prove that OJ and Casey Anthony were guilty and it would be wrong to give an innocent person the death penalty or life in prison.
But OJ was found innocent. And there wasn't enough evidence to convict Anthony. And the girl is guilty of a crime. Just because it's a "popular" crime to commit, doesn't make it right.
The point of the post was more of the severity of the crime vs. how much jail time they received, not whether or not a crime was committed in the first place.
The severity of the crime they were found innocent of committing... I think whether or not a crime was committed in the first place should be the foremost concern.
Except this was a JOKE and I know the point of the post, so I was saying what it was. And there is a difference between being found innocent, and actually BEING innocent.
It's a joke, and I think in that aspect it's somewhat funny. However, it doesn't really make sense to compare the severity of the crime with the jail sentence when the offenders were found not guilty when had they been found guilty they would have been very heavily sentenced and so as an actual political or ethical statement it fails, which was what I think both I and runnerdude were trying to say.
For the purpose of the judicial system, being found not guilty might as well be equal to being not guilty.
I favorited this because I think it's funny, but, and I'm quoting StickCaveman, "if you compare the crimes you'd probably find in most cases that's it's easier to prove if someone illegally downloaded something than if they murdered someone."
Schools follow the same logic.
Ok to bully someone and attack them; against the rules for the victim to defend themselves
http://ctrlv.in/59739
That's why you always kill 'em with kindness...but I'm sure a gun would work just as well.
Unless you prank them
Pretty sure that doesn't happen. I called a kid a faggot way back in middle school and he stabbed me with his pencil and then I got suspended, yet he got off free because he was just "defending" himself.
*American system, not "our".
Except since the American government is attempting to censor the entire innocent, people in all countries will now get in trouble for this. Hence the our.
That doesn't make it a shared universal legal system.
It's still the American legal system.
They're not trying to do that and they can't do that, if you're saying this because of Kim Schmitz, then the reason he got arrested even if he was in New Zealand (outside of US jurisdiction), is because his servers were in the United States. But had he not been stupid enough to put his servers in the US, the US government would have no authority to take him down
Chrome is telling me to correct spelling of New Zealand... how does everyone else spell it?
Innocent until proven guilty. I understand what OP is saying, but if you compare the crimes you'd probably find in most cases that's it's easier to prove if someone illegally downloaded something than if they murdered someone. That being said, the punishment differs for these crimes. Of course, I don't agree that anyone who downloads illegal music should have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars, but it's less of a penalty than death. There wasn't enough evidence to prove that OJ and Casey Anthony were guilty and it would be wrong to give an innocent person the death penalty or life in prison.
Besides.. who the hell downloads Glee episodes?
To answer your question, this girl:
cringe I'm passionate about things but I don't squeal and bawl my eyes of over them. I just don't understand.
But OJ was found innocent. And there wasn't enough evidence to convict Anthony. And the girl is guilty of a crime. Just because it's a "popular" crime to commit, doesn't make it right.
The point of the post was more of the severity of the crime vs. how much jail time they received, not whether or not a crime was committed in the first place.
The severity of the crime they were found innocent of committing... I think whether or not a crime was committed in the first place should be the foremost concern.
Except this was a JOKE and I know the point of the post, so I was saying what it was. And there is a difference between being found innocent, and actually BEING innocent.
It's a joke, and I think in that aspect it's somewhat funny. However, it doesn't really make sense to compare the severity of the crime with the jail sentence when the offenders were found not guilty when had they been found guilty they would have been very heavily sentenced and so as an actual political or ethical statement it fails, which was what I think both I and runnerdude were trying to say.
For the purpose of the judicial system, being found not guilty might as well be equal to being not guilty.
No, he was found "not guilty." It's impossible for the legal system to find someone "innocent," since the two have very different legal meanings.
Rape is a crime. Downloading music illegally is a misdemeanor.
that's true but it's still annoying
I favorited this because I think it's funny, but, and I'm quoting StickCaveman, "if you compare the crimes you'd probably find in most cases that's it's easier to prove if someone illegally downloaded something than if they murdered someone."
oh this made me laugh.
this was a repost wasn't it.
Of course it is. Don't you know that everything that there is to say has already been said?
"I bathe in moldy cheese while licking each spoon in my collection of purple spoons."
HA. I bet no one's said that.
Kim Schmitz hasn't even been sentenced yet. That's just something going around on tumblr.
Oh sorry, I didn't even see it on tumblr! My friend told me about it... I guess i'll just delete this now...