WTF?
WTF?
I would say its light too, but I would have to know alot more about this to warrant years in prison.
Finland is culturally a different place from the US, so maybe this isn't such a kooky thing to some people.
What do you think Finland is, Bizarro World?
So he took the children and tried to make them cool and he was sent to prison?
WTF?
Not so fast. We don't have enough information to make this assertion yet. Details - we need more of 'em. I think you're making the right call, but I also believe that the decision hinges upon the type of pills the man was trying to get the kids to take. I mean, if it was something lame like Tylenol PM or Nyquil gel tabs, that removes a huge amount of cool points. We think he was done a great injustice - and most likely correctly - but we just can't know 'till more information comes out.
So he took the children and tried to make them cool and he was sent to prison?
WTF?
So, what part of children drinking beer and smoking cigarettes do you find cool? I seriously hope you're kidding. If you are, I find it in very poor taste. If you aren't, you make me sick.
Also, he wasn't sent to prison, he got a conditional discharge.
So he took the children and tried to make them cool and he was sent to prison?
WTF?
I thought this was funny.
So a guy in Finland abducted four children (ages 7-10) and forced them to drink beer and smoke cigarettes. He also tried to feed them pills. Sentence: 7 months conditional.
WTF?
Your description reveals nothing. I'm assuming abduction was an actual charge, rather than your assessment of the situation. Abduction can come in many forms – if the guy simply gave the impression he was an authority figure and the children would get in trouble for disobeying, that could be considered abduction, even if it just seemed funny at the time. Believe me when I tell you from personal experience that many ideas that seem like harmless pranks in the moment can actually be very serious crimes if interpreted in the harshest possible light.
The laws are there to protect children from people who pressure children to drink and smoke and take pills and then **** them to death, not some lame schmoe living in his mom's basement who thought it would be hilarious if he got the neighbor kids to drink a few sips of beer and choke on a cigarette.
If the police, prosecuter, and judge are all familiar with the details of the case and feel that this idiot has learned his lesson and didn't really intend to harm the kids, there's no need for anything other than a light punitive sentence to drive the point home. That's part of the point of sentence dealing.
If juries do the sentencing in Finland, presumably they were convinced as well. There are plenty of reasons to distrust the judgements of juries, but at least it means he has an attorney who can convince a bunch of morons that he meant no harm.
Anyway, I'm assuming that the sentence is more reflective of the severity of the crime than your description. Obviously more details may change that.
Still, it's light. Soon as you tack on "child" to the offense, omg, all the parents and PC citizens go into berserker mode and out for legal blood. I mean, no one is pro **** (baring NAMBLA
) and the like, so they get to all feel good about themselves and stay "on the winning team".What do you think Finland is, Bizarro World?
That is definitely what I think.
Can you post more of the story or a link to it?
I thought this was funny.
Considering all the premature deaths caused by alchohol abuse and smoking.
It is neither cool or funny, just in poor taste.
Thats usually what happens in a socialist, liberal nation.
To a German, that sounds hilarious.So a guy in Finland abducted four children (ages 7-10) and forced them to drink beer and smoke cigarettes. He also tried to feed them pills. Sentence: 7 months conditional.
WTF?
Sounds about right.
Now here in the states if there was anything **** related in the whole incident then I wouldn't be surprised to see him be put in prison for multiple decades if not life. Although chances are that if we isn't protected when put into prison he might be dead within the first year.
Warum? Ich weiss nicht.
Warum? Ich weiss nicht.
Warum warum fragen?
There are so many things in this thread that I don't understand that I'm not even sure where I should start thinking about posting.
This is the OTT.
I don't think what I said is cause for thread lock or moderation.
Politics is a forbidden topic that can result in thread lock.
See the thread stickied at the top of this forum.
Thats usually what happens in a socialist, liberal nation.
I am no longer disgusted... just amused...
Expect such things to start creeping into the US...
Two things.
1) Light sentences have very little to do with government.
2) Light sentences can occur under a right wing government as much as they can under a left wing government.
I don't think what I said is cause for thread lock or moderation.
It was rather tame.
I could have been a lot worse!
I answered the question as honestly as I could. If you look at social data, you will find I am more likely right than not.
I am not trying to start a political argument.
Then don't post political statements such as "This always happens under a social government." There was nothing in the OP to do with governments, or any political material that should elict such a responce.
Considering all the premature deaths caused by alchohol abuse and smoking.
It is neither cool or funny, just in poor taste.
False.
Well...
I am going to stay away from political arguments.
I will have to heavily wrap my head in duct tape from time to time... to keep it from exploding, but I won't get drawn into pointless, endless, bickering.
Good for you, and when you stop posting imflamatory (and, might I add, CoC violating) comments such as "Children die under socialist governments" we'll all be far closer to not getting drawn into political arguments.
Warum? Ich weiss nicht.
Sorry. I was laughing and didn't bother to explain:
In Germany, the political spectrum is seen less as a scale, and more as a triangle: liberal, socialist (which means somewhat leftist - not openly Marxist ;) ), and conservative. Those are also the three major parties around here. Some differences, taken to extremes to be meaningful:
Liberals tend to see the person as an individual, are for a weaker welfare state (nobody in Germany would ever consider abolishing it), free market, and are divided on the issue of foreign policy.
Socialists (or Socialists-Democrats, as we call them to avoid confusion) see the person as part of his community, are for a strong welfare state, (somewhat) controlled market, and lean heavily towards pacifism.
Conservatives see the person as part of his family, are divided on the subject of economics, and tend to advocate somewhat more militant foreign policies.
Thus, most people - including politicians - combine two of the three extremes: we have liberal conservatives, liberal socialists, and (a bit rarer) conservative socialists (i.e., conservatives advocating the welfare state and a more economically-involved government). Leads to pretty weird situations, too - I would consider myself a die-hard liberal, believing in personal freedoms etc., and that leads me to side with the right-wing conservatives most of the time (right-wing as in, very conservative; not the neo-nazi party ;) ).
Now, HATER is right that our country is quite "Socialist" - strong welfare state, lots of talk of social equality, and the like. We also tend to think of ourselves as very liberal - though I personally believe we're highly inconsistent on that point, but that's just me.
However, to us, the thought of the US as "socialist and liberal" is hilarious; I think I understand what HATER means, but the use of the words is just the sort of thing you'd never hear around here. We're quite divided here on the issue of the US being liberal - I would say they are, in the best sense of the word, many would say they are not - but the idea of them being Socialist (in our terms) is preposterous. Weak welfare state, pretty free economics, labour unions much less powerful than around here, etc. In our triangle, they would range on the liberal-conservative scale - far removed from the third corner.
I am not trying to start (or fuel, as the case may be) a political discussion, it's just a difference that's always struck me. As a true liberal, I believe in the individual's right to his own opinion ;).