Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 207 posts

Re: Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

#51

Post by ChuckMcM »

jackvalentine wrote: post #38
paulhauggis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on HN, it depends. a greedy corporate fat cat that cheated people? punishment. Drug or copyright infringement related crimes? rehab.

And why so you think that is? (I'm withholding my opinion/explanation until I feel I understand yours and can provide a more valuable response)

I don't know paul, and his comment reads like a counter-troll, but the implicit statement that the audience of the statement incorporates their own perspective on the morality of the crime into their perception of the remedy is valid.

The question about diets for prisoners that accommodate the needs of the prisoner is generally a 20th century concept[1]. And generally case after case has sided with the prisoners[2].

[1] I've yet to find a case prior to the treatment of prisoners of war in WW 1 that discussed diet but I haven't looked particularly hard so I offer this opinion with confidence but not certainty :-)

[2] Recent example -- https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2014/may/19/florida-pri...

Re: Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

#52

Post by chrisbennet »

carlisle_ wrote: post #2

>There was no concern for his vegan diet I can't be the only one that thinks it's ridiculous for a prison to accommodate voluntary diets like this.

I had a US jail as a client for my long ago RFID business and they had 4 types of meals: 2 kosher (jewish and islamic), "normal" and medical/special as I recall.

I used to tell people our app tracked inventory that was trying to escape.

Re: Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

#53

Post by zak_mc_kracken »

Someone1234 wrote: post #43
baddox wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it depend on that?

Because the only goal of forcing someone to eat something they consider immoral is to punish. It certainly won't help rehabilitation efforts (likely hurt them, in fact).

> Because the only goal of forcing someone to eat something they consider immoral is to punish.

Prison is punishment first, rehabilitation second (and it's pretty bad at that considering the percentage of recidivists).

Of all the consequences of breaking the law, being forced to eat something you don't like certainly sounds pretty mild.

Re: Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

#55

Post by DanBC »

a3_nm wrote: post #21
carlisle_ wrote: post #2

>There was no concern for his vegan diet I can't be the only one that thinks it's ridiculous for a prison to accommodate voluntary diets like this.

I agree with the fact that it is problematic to say that prisons should accommodate any kind of voluntary diets (vegetarian, vegan, halal, kosher, etc.). I do not say this because prisons should "punish" inmates, but because it would require to draw a line between "common" or "reasonable" voluntary diets, and other diets. (Of course, this does not apply to special diets required for medical reasons.) In fact, I have…

The lines are pretty clear:

Vegan; vegetarian; Halal; Kosher; medical; none of the above.

These rules cover most religions and most lifestyle diets; these do exclude wishy-washy bullshit.

Not providing foods guided by a person's religion is probably a violation of article 5 and is a violation of article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights.

You can ask that the prisonor provides evidence of adherance to the restricted diet in their lofe before they became a prisoner. For example, a prisoner who claims to be vegetarian could show that they had been a member of the vegetarian society in their life outside prison.

Re: Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

#56

Post by Someone1234 »

baddox wrote: post #47
Someone1234 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the only goal of forcing someone to eat something they consider immoral is to punish. It certainly won't help rehabilitation efforts (likely hurt them, in fact).

That need not be a goal, and it certainly wouldn't be the only goal. The primary goal would be cost and logistics. I don't think prisons have chefs custom making meals for each prisoner.

Short term savings for long term costs. How much is recidivism costing the US right now? They have made massive savings per prisoner but their reoffending rates are 60% Vs. 30% for Sweden.

Re: Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

#57

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

Carrok wrote: post #49
geofft wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My vegetarian friends say that they literally can't eat meat any more, in the sense that their stomach physiology (acids? bacteria? not sure) isn't capable of digesting it. Yes, it was voluntary at some point, but it's not clear that you can still apply that label. As someone with food allergies, I could understand (and be unhappy) if a captor decided to feed me allergens as intentional punishment, but I'd be pretty…

I don't believe your friends. They may notice the meat in their stomachs and feel more 'full' than usual, even feel bad. But 'incapable of digesting it'? Not likely. What, the toilet has whole hotdog pieces in it?

I stopped eating meat as a regular part of my diet nearly four years ago, and now eating more than a little tiny bit will make me physically ill with severe stomach distress. I would certainly count that as 'not capable of digesting', and to say otherwise is pure pedantry.

And if you're putting whole hotdog pieces in your stomach you might want to consider chewing a little more carefully, that way leads to choking.

Re: Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

#58

Post by zak_mc_kracken »

film42 wrote: post #18
adamnemecek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Running servers costs money. And IIRC they were actually losing money even with the ads.

> Although Sunde did not provide Ars with specific financial details regarding The Pirate Bay's operational expenses, he did argue that the site's high bandwidth, power, and hardware costs eliminate the potential for profit. The Pirate Bay, he says, may ultimately be operating at a loss. Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/02/pirate-bay-big-re...

Not making money doing something illegal doesn't make it any more legal.

Re: Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

#59

Post by UrMomReadsHN »

geofft wrote: post #48
carlisle_ wrote: post #2

>There was no concern for his vegan diet I can't be the only one that thinks it's ridiculous for a prison to accommodate voluntary diets like this.

My vegetarian friends say that they literally can't eat meat any more, in the sense that their stomach physiology (acids? bacteria? not sure) isn't capable of digesting it. Yes, it was voluntary at some point, but it's not clear that you can still apply that label. As someone with food allergies, I could understand (and be unhappy) if a captor decided to feed me allergens as intentional punishment, but I'd be pretty…

Any new diet can cause digestive issues at first. People generally aclumate over time.

[Note: i personally am in full support of prisoners being allowed to keep their diet while being incarcerated. Especially as someone who has a special diet myself. ]

Re: Pirate Bay Founder Peter Sunde Released from Prison

#60

Post by TomGullen »

zak_mc_kracken wrote: post #53
Someone1234 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the only goal of forcing someone to eat something they consider immoral is to punish. It certainly won't help rehabilitation efforts (likely hurt them, in fact).

> Because the only goal of forcing someone to eat something they consider immoral is to punish. Prison is punishment first, rehabilitation second (and it's pretty bad at that considering the percentage of recidivists). Of all the consequences of breaking the law, being forced to eat something you don't like certainly sounds pretty mild.

Only because YOU consider it mild, probably because you're happy to eat anything.

Do you not understand that perhaps other people might feel differently? And are you unable to empathise with that point of view?

Post reply on HN