Irish Judge Orders 13-Year-Old To Surrender Xbox 445
An anonymous reader writes "In Belfast a High Court judge has ordered a 13 year old to surrender his Xbox to the authorities. The boy was charged with a series of robberies and in the bail application the judge asked the boy what he owned that meant a lot to him. The teenager said it was his Xbox games system. The judge told the youth that the surrender of the Xbox would show him what it was like to have something he really valued taken from him."
Re:Accused but not yet convicted (Score:5, Informative)
ITT: everyone on slashdot but a few misunderstands what bail is.
It's a guarantee of showing up to court. He gets his xbox back if he shows up to court. If he doesn't, it becomes property of the government. Explain how this is unreasonable.
--
BMO
Re:Accused but not yet convicted (Score:4, Informative)
So we are supposed to cheer from seizing property from someone who has been accused but not yet convicted?
TFA:
and applied to be released on bail...
[...]
The judge then ordered him to give the XBOX to the authorities, saying it would be returned to him when the charges were disposed of.
Not a seizure, but a bail. As the kid wouldn't have had enough money, punishing the parents to pay the bail would be worse. Putting the kid in jail for not paying the bail... even worse.
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Informative)
News Flash: You're not a behavioral psychologist either, chum, and your answer shows it. Stick with what you know.
You're talking about Pavlov's-dogs-style behaviorism, the judge isn't. And by the way, behaviorism is out of favor "in general" as a strategy, but that doesn't mean it is discredited.
So yeah, the judge isn't going to have the boy whipped (strict behaviorist strategy). Discomfort that encourages thinking about context is a different beast altogether, which is what the judge is proposing. This is more like putting your kid in time out and asking them to come back to you when they can explain why you are mad at them.
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Informative)
I've got no belief that throwing people in a hole will set them straight. On the other hand, I'd be pretty scared of a prison system that didn't discourage crime. A legal system where you get convicted but the punishment is a raised finger and "Please don't do that again" won't do much good. Yes, perhaps in some cases you can take away the reason for their crimes like making them kick the drug habit, but far from all criminals are junkies. A lot of them steal simply because they can and you can't cure that by giving them free things.
We did try that with some of the roaming thieves for a while, the result was they acted like legal squatters. They kept stealing from all the neighbors, they trashed their own place and before they left they stole everything that wasn't nailed down. It was like pure consumption, not a care in the world for preserving anything. We just threw them a free party and when they were done they moved on to trash somewhere else. Fines are of course a joke because they have no income and anything they steal won't be used to pay fines.
Largely the crime itself is risk free, because almost anything that can bring that burglar to harm is illegal unless your life is in immediate danger which is interpreted very strictly. As long as he turns and runs you'd better let him run or else you might end up on charges for injuring him. While he's likely to get a minimal penalty for any injury he causes you while trying to flee. My country is pretty much the direct opposite of Texas, they have all the rights even when in the middle of robbing me blind.
The "catch-and-release" here in Norway means that we have people who are convicted of 25+ crimes a year (not 25+ trials, we gather them up) and that's just what they're caught for. The overall solve rate is 43% so probably well over 50 crimes a year. I don't know what is working, but the all too lenient system here also isn't working very well. Each of those crimes have victims, but it doesn't seem stopping more people from becoming victims is a priority at all. Why should I risk being assaulted to give you another chance?
Re:Excellent! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Excellent! (Score:1, Informative)
Err... it is Áras an Uachtaráin...
I presume the tilde was some funny codepage error, we call the accent a "fadda" which means "long", so you pronounce it aaras an uachtaraain (kinda translates to residence of the hightest leader).
Irony is though, the president has pretty much no power - it's just a figurehead, political decisions are made by the Teaoseach and the Oireachtas [wikipedia.org]
Re:Excellent! (Score:4, Informative)
Bail conditions are pretty routine in the US these days, though rarely very creative (surrender passport, stay away from victim, blah blah blah). A condition like this would definitely raise constitutional questions, though. Pre-trial confinement and bail are supposed to be preventative measures to ensure appearance in court and, in extreme cases, protect society. Taking away the kid's xbox is clearly punitive.
You don't understand (Score:4, Informative)
The judge accepted his Xbox as part of his bail, not a punishment.
Europeans are much less accepting of the discriminatory & uncivilized practice of bail bondsmen, outlawing their activities in many jurisdictions. Instead, courts try harder to make the bail fit the accused means while still forcing their appearance at trial.
We should ideally outlaw bail bondsmen in the U.S. too, but they know their activities are morally bankrupt, and so hire lobbyists.