[flagged]
This spam account needs to be banned.
my bad, wasn't trying to spam
First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
51–56 of 56 posts
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this relevant to how long sentences should be? I'm glad he didn't waste the court's time very much, I guess.
Because the crime he committed and primarily was sentenced for was breaking his probation. Presumably his probation terms included "don't commit crimes" so the cyberflasher law is only relevant as it was the crime he did to break his probation
[flagged]
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#53In some cultures, recipients of such pictures would probably just laugh and be at most confused. In others, the population is conditioned to be offended to the point of making it highly illegal. It doesn't even sound like this case is about mutilated or otherwise abnormally disturbing imagery; merely normal human anatomy.
“Normal human anatomy” is what you say if someone’s swimsuit slips in the surf, not when a sex offender sends a child pictures with the intent of forcing them to think about him sexually. The difference is intent: he knew it was unwelcome, and he didn’t care about that lack of consent. Now might be a really good time to think about why your first instinct is to defend the guy committing mid-level sexual assault rathe…
[flagged]
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you think sending dick pics to a 15 year old is chill in other cultures? Not what they said. The suggestion was that they'd laugh, make a joke about stupid men, tell them to put their dick away. The most probable response to a real life flasher in this part of the world would be a little finger wiggle and the expression "ahh, winyarn" with a lot of mocking laughter. Needless to say, not very many actual flashers…
I’m very curious if you have heard about the murder of Sarah Everard. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard Her murderer, Wayne Couzens, had on multiple occasions “flashed” various women before kidnapping and murdering her. These prior offenses were reported to the police but the police failed to investigate them properly. If they would have they would have recognised the escalating trend in his beh…
[flagged]
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the crime he committed and primarily was sentenced for was breaking his probation. Presumably his probation terms included "don't commit crimes" so the cyberflasher law is only relevant as it was the crime he did to break his probation
The punishment for breaking probation should mostly be going back to prison. Over five years is way too much for that. Either way, if that's the case then this story is extremely misleading.
Probation is a privilege that a prisoner needs to apply for. It could be argued that even though he was previously convicted perhaps he didn’t know the exact consequences and so leniency can be given. However, by violating probation, he has proven to be intentionally malicious and a danger to society even more so then before. I think a few extra years for that is definitely justified
Re: First 'cyberflasher' convicted under UK's new law, gets more than 5 years prison
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
The punishment for breaking probation should mostly be going back to prison. Over five years is way too much for that. Either way, if that's the case then this story is extremely misleading.
Probation is a privilege that a prisoner needs to apply for. It could be argued that even though he was previously convicted perhaps he didn’t know the exact consequences and so leniency can be given. However, by violating probation, he has proven to be intentionally malicious and a danger to society even more so then before. I think a few extra years for that is definitely justified
People usually do felonies in an intentionally malicious way. The base punishment should already take care of that.
Think of it this way: If someone on probation intentionally shoplifts, and gets a full punishment for shoplifting, and their probation gets cancelled, how much extra punishment should they get on top of that? I'd say some, but not years. And I don't think the extra a punishment should be a multiplier, I think it should be largely independent of the specific crime. Different amounts for misdemeanor and felony, probably, but neither one should be huge.