By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Human right violations in persecution of Julian Assange?

Player2 said:
Barozi said:

There are several flaws in that logic though.
You assume that people who commit financial crimes to be wealthy. So what's with a poor guy who is in serious debt and yet keeps buying TVs, mobile phones etc. with money he doesn't have? Do you think he cares that he gets a financial punishment? You can't stop his future actions that way.

So the alternative would be community work. And how exactly would you enforce that? A fine wouldn't help at all as stated above so the only chance would be to threaten him with a prison sentence.

You don't even go to jail for that, unless you haven't paid your taxes (that's tax evading) or neglect child support.

His actions will stop when no bank lends him money. And that happens fast. Then he'll be stripped off his posessions to pay his debts and find himself living under a bridge. Sounds like a good enough deterrent to me.

There's no bank involved in my example. He doesn't need money as that guy can just order his stuff and "pay later" (which he of course doesn't). He gets the goods, sells them to someone else, uses the money to buy food, alcohol, cigarettes or anything else that can't be stripped off of him.

If you do that on purpose, meaning you knew in advance that your debt is so big that you couldn't ever pay the money when you accepted the contract then you can face prison as this is a case of fraud.

Also he can't be living under a bridge when he lives in a country with a working social security system.



Around the Network
Barozi said:

There's no bank involved in my example. He doesn't need money as that guy can just order his stuff and "pay later" (which he of course doesn't). He gets the goods, sells them to someone else, uses the money to buy food, alcohol, cigarettes or anything else that can't be stripped off of him.

If you do that on purpose, meaning you knew in advance that your debt is so big that you couldn't ever pay the money when you accepted the contract then you can face prison as this is a case of fraud.

Also he can't be living under a bridge when he lives in a country with a working social security system.

You are aware that's why credit rating exists in many countries? The second he does it once his rating will drop into a bad rating and he won't be able to do it again your example is literally a one time thing as the person won't be able to do it again until they rebuild their rating. You don't go to prison for such acts because the cost of the whole case and such is more then what will be owed so companies just write off what they're owed and hit your credit rating instead.



Barozi said:
vivster said:

@Chrkeller

The best punishment for financial crimes is financial punishment. That means stripping them off their wealth forever until they can pay back what they stole plus fine and as an added bonus community work on weekends. It's a lot healthier than prison and it's beneficial for everyone.

Prison should be to protect people on the outside from violent people not as an extended slap on the wrist. A violent person goes there to cool off, so that he may become non-violent once he is released. There is really no point in putting non-violent people there. At some point the harshness of the punishment becomes irrelevant and there is no difference between doing community work for life or rotting in prison.

In my opinion punishment should focus more on the improvement of the individual and society rather than just be pure punishment with no benefit whatsoever.

There are several flaws in that logic though.
You assume that people who commit financial crimes to be wealthy. So what's with a poor guy who is in serious debt and yet keeps buying TVs, mobile phones etc. with money he doesn't have? Do you think he cares that he gets a financial punishment? You can't stop his future actions that way.

So the alternative would be community work. And how exactly would you enforce that? A fine wouldn't help at all as stated above so the only chance would be to threaten him with a prison sentence.

The people buying stuff even if they are indebted, have a problem. Prison isn't helping anyone in that case, they need psychological treatment. Besides, these people do negligable damage to the economy, one big speculation scheme does economic damage for thousand of these poor saps who have a shopping addiction.

And these guys usually have no problem doing their social or community work. If anything you can use prison as a fallback, if they slip their community work, although I suspect it will not change much.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Wyrdness said:
Barozi said:

There's no bank involved in my example. He doesn't need money as that guy can just order his stuff and "pay later" (which he of course doesn't). He gets the goods, sells them to someone else, uses the money to buy food, alcohol, cigarettes or anything else that can't be stripped off of him.

If you do that on purpose, meaning you knew in advance that your debt is so big that you couldn't ever pay the money when you accepted the contract then you can face prison as this is a case of fraud.

Also he can't be living under a bridge when he lives in a country with a working social security system.

You are aware that's why credit rating exists in many countries? The second he does it once his rating will drop into a bad rating and he won't be able to do it again your example is literally a one time thing as the person won't be able to do it again until they rebuild their rating. You don't go to prison for such acts because the cost of the whole case and such is more then what will be owed so companies just write off what they're owed and hit your credit rating instead.

lol far from it, you're too naive. Quite a few companies don't check credit ratings, hell they even advertise that they aren't checking, because checking alone will decrease your score. Then you forgot the easiest way to bypass this "one time thing" issue. Use a fake name.

Also you're mixing up civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction. Companies could drop the case but that doesn't change that the state attorney can charge you with fraud, which can (and if you keep doing it will) result in a prison sentence.



Barozi said:
Wyrdness said:

You are aware that's why credit rating exists in many countries? The second he does it once his rating will drop into a bad rating and he won't be able to do it again your example is literally a one time thing as the person won't be able to do it again until they rebuild their rating. You don't go to prison for such acts because the cost of the whole case and such is more then what will be owed so companies just write off what they're owed and hit your credit rating instead.

lol far from it, you're too naive. Quite a few companies don't check credit ratings, hell they even advertise that they aren't checking, because checking alone will decrease your score. Then you forgot the easiest way to bypass this "one time thing" issue. Use a fake name.

Also you're mixing up civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction. Companies could drop the case but that doesn't change that the state attorney can charge you with fraud, which can (and if you keep doing it will) result in a prison sentence.

You must not delve into finance much when you try to do what you said you need your passport, proof of address etc... Good luck giving a fake name. As far as I know no company offering goods like you say does so with out credit checks at least not here in the UK only companies that don't do checks are companies like challenger banks looking to build a customer base or ones that require you to put down someone for collateral who then has to confirm their details and all for it to go through.

State attorney's and such aren't a thing here in the UK and much of Europe or many other countries it's up to the company to initiate legal action and practically all the time they don't as the cost of such actions is higher than that of what they're owed.



Around the Network
Mnementh said:
Barozi said:

There are several flaws in that logic though.
You assume that people who commit financial crimes to be wealthy. So what's with a poor guy who is in serious debt and yet keeps buying TVs, mobile phones etc. with money he doesn't have? Do you think he cares that he gets a financial punishment? You can't stop his future actions that way.

So the alternative would be community work. And how exactly would you enforce that? A fine wouldn't help at all as stated above so the only chance would be to threaten him with a prison sentence.

The people buying stuff even if they are indebted, have a problem. Prison isn't helping anyone in that case, they need psychological treatment. Besides, these people do negligable damage to the economy, one big speculation scheme does economic damage for thousand of these poor saps who have a shopping addiction.

And these guys usually have no problem doing their social or community work. If anything you can use prison as a fallback, if they slip their community work, although I suspect it will not change much.

Well they are mostly badly educated and never learned how to spend money properly.
Still I'm not talking about the ones that are addicted, I'm talking about those who simply don't care about their debt, because they have the attitude that someone (the public or the company) will take care of it eventually.



Wyrdness said:
Barozi said:

lol far from it, you're too naive. Quite a few companies don't check credit ratings, hell they even advertise that they aren't checking, because checking alone will decrease your score. Then you forgot the easiest way to bypass this "one time thing" issue. Use a fake name.

Also you're mixing up civil jurisdiction and criminal jurisdiction. Companies could drop the case but that doesn't change that the state attorney can charge you with fraud, which can (and if you keep doing it will) result in a prison sentence.

You must not delve into finance much when you try to do what you said you need your passport, proof of address etc... Good luck giving a fake name. As far as I know no company offering goods like you say does so with out credit checks at least not here in the UK only companies that don't do checks are companies like challenger banks looking to build a customer base or ones that require you to put down someone for collateral who then has to confirm their details and all for it to go through.

State attorney's and such aren't a thing here in the UK and much of Europe or many other countries it's up to the company to initiate legal action and practically all the time they don't as the cost of such actions is higher than that of what they're owed.

sry I don't believe you one bit.
Fraud is a crime, just like murder. So you're telling me that if someone kills an employee of some company and the company doesn't initiate legal action... nothing will happen? Bullshit. It's a state's duty to prosecute crime and I found who's doing that in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Public_Prosecutions_(England_and_Wales) It might not be called state attorney but every solicitor representing the state essentially is.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the company and if they want (or can get) their money back or not. That would be a completely different trial.


Obviously I don't know exactly what payment options UK companies usually offer but I don't think they are checking as often as you think. Or we're talking about something entirely different. I'm just talking about some private guy ordering consumer goods from companies on account. In case that's unusual in the UK, here's an excerpt:

"The payment method purchase on account is the most popular method of payment for online purchases in the DACH region. This involves sending the goods together with an invoice, which the buyer is required to settle with the merchant by a specified due date. Since the merchant advances credit for this payment method, it generally performs a credit check as a safeguard to avoid the possibility of a non-payment. This payment method is only offered to the relevant online shopper following a favorable credit and risk check. Payment against invoice or installment payments are also referred to an insecure payment method."

I mean.. where do they get your information from? A register office? Most likely not. Why would the state give personal information to private companies. So what if you've never bought anything in the UK? They won't have any data about you so how would they know the name is fake when you might as well be a new resident who moved into the same building.




Barozi said:

sry I don't believe you one bit.
Fraud is a crime, just like murder. So you're telling me that if someone kills an employee of some company and the company doesn't initiate legal action... nothing will happen? Bullshit. It's a state's duty to prosecute crime and I found who's doing that in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_Public_Prosecutions_(England_and_Wales) It might not be called state attorney but every solicitor representing the state essentially is.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the company and if they want (or can get) their money back or not. That would be a completely different trial.


Obviously I don't know exactly what payment options UK companies usually offer but I don't think they are checking as often as you think. Or we're talking about something entirely different. I'm just talking about some private guy ordering consumer goods from companies on account. In case that's unusual in the UK, here's an excerpt:

"The payment method purchase on account is the most popular method of payment for online purchases in the DACH region. This involves sending the goods together with an invoice, which the buyer is required to settle with the merchant by a specified due date. Since the merchant advances credit for this payment method, it generally performs a credit check as a safeguard to avoid the possibility of a non-payment. This payment method is only offered to the relevant online shopper following a favorable credit and risk check. Payment against invoice or installment payments are also referred to an insecure payment method."

I mean.. where do they get your information from? A register office? Most likely not. Why would the state give personal information to private companies. So what if you've never bought anything in the UK? They won't have any data about you so how would they know the name is fake when you might as well be a new resident who moved into the same building.


You don't have to believe me doesn't change that it's a fact lets start by looking at the strawman example you've given murder is a different class of crime from fraud which has many different levels as with murder the level of damage to the victim is the same as someone dies and it's not the company the person works for who takes action it's the person's family do you know how many companies would be in court everyday if they sued for the murder of their employees? You really think KFC would sue a random mugger for stabbing Jeffrey who works the til? Taking out a phone contract or TV then not paying is minimal damage to a company police here aren't as concerned over that. UK law requires that companies have to make contact (as in the person has to let them know they're aware of the situation) with the person before any action is taken then if contact is made they have to give options of repayment repossession in the UK has huge regulations on it so bailiffs are not an option for companies so most people just default on the payments or never make contact with the companies and it gets written off, the result is companies sell the debt to debt collecting agencies who tried to reclaim some amount but most of the time don't so end up just hitting the person's credit score practically all the time the is no jail time given because the person can just say well I don't have the money to pay right now it would be on you to prove it was actual fraud which you would never be able to do.

In Uk no account that you make purchases like the ones you're on about does so with out credit checks non you either have to buy upfront with out checks or go the contract route with out checks, if you're not from the UK you can't get anything until you're in the system that's how it works here as if they don't see you on the system then they won't allow you to have such contracts as you need an actual profile history (address history for 3 years, valid passport etc...). Companies that offer such options get their information from credit agencies who have access to your credit profile they're registered clients of these agencies who do the checks for them it's nowhere near as simple as you think it is to fraud is a very grey area hence why a lot of people get away with it which is why credit ratings became so prominent.

Want an example of how people can get away with it look up Wonga who got fleeced hard in their quick loan business the government ruled that the letters they sent people who weren't paying were threatening when one person took action against them and not only violated rights but also deemed Wonga were lending recklessly with out factoring in people's circumstances so all the debts owed got written off as people feigned ignorance.

Last edited by Wyrdness - on 02 July 2019

CuCabeludo said:

Until now, clintons still don't want the servers to be analized by the FBI. It wasn't even a hack, someone with access to the server just copied the data locally to a pen drive or an external hard drive and gave it to wikileaks.

Their servers were analyzed.  Why do people still believe they were not?  They were turned over in August of 2015.  Why is it that nearly 4 years later this is still being misunderstood?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

He worked together with Celsy Manning to get access to sensitive information. From what I understand, he received some information at first but there has been information pointing to him encouraging Manning to obtain even more information illegally. If true, he should be punished even if the I formation obtained raised a lot of questions regarding the US military and intelligence. Otherwise, he should be freed and be compensated. I don't think it should be much more complicated than this, right?