Judge Takes Away Teen's Xbox

[Red Albatross]

That...is a great punishment. Too bad it's more likely that the kid will steal someone else's Xbox than actually learning something.

 

[GeorgW]

I was worried this was some sort of that stupid "games cause violence" argument again, glad to see it wasn't.
I always like creative punishment.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Isn't there a clause in the American law that prevents "cruel and unusual punishment"? Seems to fit the bill for the latter.

The key word is 'and'.

The death penalty is considered cruel by some, but it's legal (in some places) because it isn't an unusual punishment.

Taking away the Xbox is an unusual punishment, but not a cruel one.

...Well, I suppose the teen in question would disagree.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

You know, I might support this had he actually been convicted, but as it is this sounds a bit premature if he hasn't actually stood trial yet. I mean, creative justice is all well and good, but you need to make sure the person you punishing is actually guilty. If he's pleading guilty I'd be okay with it, but the article is (as with all legal articles on the Escapist) rather sparse in that kind of significant detail. Actually, this site seems to always just assume the accused is guilty. It's a tad worrying.

This site? Try the general public. If the Casey Anthony trial has taught us anything, it's that we need an impartial justice system, because without it, humans quickly degenerate into a lynch mob.

OT: If OtherSideofSky is right, and this was done before the trial, there's something seriously wrong here. You shouldn't punish people who are accused of, but not convicted of, the crime they are being punished for. Innocent until proven guilty goes back to the fricken' Magna Carta -- any nation with ties to the UK should recognize its importance.

Do either of you possess any kind of reading comprehension skills? He wasn't having it taken away as his sentence, he was simply being bailed. Don't start going on about the erosion of civil liberties if you don't even know which right is of relevance here.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

You know, I might support this had he actually been convicted, but as it is this sounds a bit premature if he hasn't actually stood trial yet. I mean, creative justice is all well and good, but you need to make sure the person you punishing is actually guilty. If he's pleading guilty I'd be okay with it, but the article is (as with all legal articles on the Escapist) rather sparse in that kind of significant detail. Actually, this site seems to always just assume the accused is guilty. It's a tad worrying.

This site? Try the general public. If the Casey Anthony trial has taught us anything, it's that we need an impartial justice system, because without it, humans quickly degenerate into a lynch mob.

OT: If OtherSideofSky is right, and this was done before the trial, there's something seriously wrong here. You shouldn't punish people who are accused of, but not convicted of, the crime they are being punished for. Innocent until proven guilty goes back to the fricken' Magna Carta -- any nation with ties to the UK should recognize its importance.

Do either of you possess any kind of reading comprehension skills? He wasn't having it taken away as his sentence, he was simply being bailed. Don't start going on about the erosion of civil liberties if you don't even know which right is of relevance here.

Even so, taking his Xbox as part of his bail isn't how it usually works. Bail is supposed to be a guarantee that you won't run away before your day in court shows up -- you pay an amount of money scaled to the crime and your income, and if you show up in court, you get it back. The Xbox thing smacks of creative punishment, not bail.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Do either of you possess any kind of reading comprehension skills? He wasn't having it taken away as his sentence, he was simply being bailed. Don't start going on about the erosion of civil liberties if you don't even know which right is of relevance here.

Even so, taking his Xbox as part of his bail isn't how it usually works. Bail is supposed to be a guarantee that you won't run away before your day in court shows up -- you pay an amount of money scaled to the crime and your income, and if you show up in court, you get it back. The Xbox thing smacks of creative punishment, not bail.

And this is different how? Instead of monetary sum, he hands over one of his possessions. We're talking about a 13 year old kid here, and since it's reasonable to assume he doesn't have a significant disposable income, but still wants to be granted bail like an adult, it doesn't seem entirely out of line with the system for the judge to force him to post one of his possessions as bail. Either way, he's going to get it back.

 

[mjc0961]

You know, I might support this had he actually been convicted, but as it is this sounds a bit premature if he hasn't actually stood trial yet. I mean, creative justice is all well and good, but you need to make sure the person you punishing is actually guilty. If he's pleading guilty I'd be okay with it, but the article is (as with all legal articles on the Escapist) rather sparse in that kind of significant detail. Actually, this site seems to always just assume the accused is guilty. It's a tad worrying.

I dunno, seems fine to me. Basically the 360 is being used as bail (incentive to stay and stand trial instead of trying to run away to avoid the charges), and a 360 is pretty cheap as far as bail goes. Whether or not they actually wanted real bail money or not aside from the 360 isn't really mentioned, but if not, that kid actually got off pretty good. Or rather, his parents did.

 

[Valagetti]

I feel sorry for the judge, dealing with stupid cases like these. It is amusing and I'm sure this isn't the first time this happpened. And expect Ireland to come up with this unique punishment, I'm just playing the hearing out in my head and they all have heavy Irish accents.

 

[Corporal Yakob]

Now to really rub salt into the wound-delete all his achievements and game saves!

 

[duchaked]

ooooh BURN

not quite as much as those cheaters on XBL (permanent ban...yowch) but still

 

[Chamale]

Whatever happened to due process? Innocent until proven guilty? Someone who is innocent shouldn't have their possessions confiscated by a judge. This teenager hasn't been convicted of any crimes, but lots of posters here are treating him like he's already proven to be a criminal.

 

[Speakercone]

Whatever happened to due process? Innocent until proven guilty? Someone who is innocent shouldn't have their possessions confiscated by a judge. This teenager hasn't been convicted of any crimes, but lots of posters here are treating him like he's already proven to be a criminal.

This would be my objection as well. On the one hand, it amounts to asking the boy to contribute meaningfully to his bail conditions, on the other hand, it also amounts to levying punishment before he's found guilty of any offence.

 

[neolithic]

Creative, yes.
Work in America, no.

But then there's a lot of things that fit that description. :/

 

[chiefohara]

You know, I might support this had he actually been convicted, but as it is this sounds a bit premature if he hasn't actually stood trial yet. I mean, creative justice is all well and good, but you need to make sure the person you punishing is actually guilty. If he's pleading guilty I'd be okay with it, but the article is (as with all legal articles on the Escapist) rather sparse in that kind of significant detail. Actually, this site seems to always just assume the accused is guilty. It's a tad worrying.

This site? Try the general public. If the Casey Anthony trial has taught us anything, it's that we need an impartial justice system, because without it, humans quickly degenerate into a lynch mob.

OT: If OtherSideofSky is right, and this was done before the trial, there's something seriously wrong here. You shouldn't punish people who are accused of, but not convicted of, the crime they are being punished for. Innocent until proven guilty goes back to the fricken' Magna Carta -- any nation with ties to the UK should recognize its importance.

Do either of you possess any kind of reading comprehension skills? He wasn't having it taken away as his sentence, he was simply being bailed. Don't start going on about the erosion of civil liberties if you don't even know which right is of relevance here.

Thing is... having read the article, the kid has been electronically tagged as well

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13964446

Makes the Xbox thing look less inventive and more petty, that said though the kid probably deserved it.

 

[Low Key]

Sweet, but couldn't he like, um, just buy (or steal) another one?

But for now, huzzah! Deal with it you little whipper snapper. Get off my lawn!

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Thing is... having read the article, the kid has been electronically tagged as well

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13964446

Makes the Xbox thing look less inventive and more petty, that said though the kid probably deserved it.

Ah, well in that case I agree that it seems superfluous to bail AND tag him. This kid isn't Dominique Strauss-Kahn, for crying out loud...

 

[Outright Villainy]

This is hilarious.

This is also probably the first time I'm ever laughing with the Irish justice system.

 

[Pilkingtube]

I like this justice system, minus the blasphemy law in there law system

But that was abolished in the UK in 2008, keep up!

 

[Pinguin]

I like the idea, and I hope it works. Cynically though I expect the kid will now blame the police/justice system, and go on a bigger crime spree to 'get back' (and perhaps acquire a replacement xbox).