Rapist could lose £7m Lotto prize

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

If you bought a shitty 80's pop single, you probably gave money to Jonathan King
If you bought a shitty 70's compilation, you probably gave money to Gary Glitter
If you bought a Lotto Extra ticket, you gave money to a convicted rapist.

Wheres the line Rob?

More to the point, where's the problem?

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

The Sun Says
THE smile might yet be wiped off the face of £7m Lotto rapist Iorworth Hoare.

Home Secretary David Blunkett vows to change the law to make Hoare hand some of his winnings over to victims of crime.

Thousands of outraged readers rang The Sun yesterday backing our demand for a law to stop criminals pocketing Lotto fortunes.

A TV poll showed 92 per cent in favour of legislation.

Mr Blunkett is planning a law to allow compensation to be claimed from criminals who win fortunes.

The Sun salutes Mr Blunkett’s proposals. Let’s hope they take effect without delay.

Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell and chiefs at Lotto firm Camelot must also get their act together. One way or another, Britain demands that this NEVER happen again.

Hoare also faces more trouble.

His sickened wife plans to divorce him, take half his money and hand it to his victims. And the victims themselves are set to sue him.

This worthless vermin must not end up with a single penny.

i love the sun

[edit to add - i hope this satisfies jonny in helping out the authoritarian side of the debate ]

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Not exactly true; retroactive laws are sometimes considered approriate, particularly with copyright.

Originally Posted by From Your First Link

Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society.

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by queball

Not exactly true; retroactive laws are sometimes considered approriate, particularly with copyright.

Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retrospective legislation, though some have suggested that judge-made 'law' is retrospective as a new precedent applies to events that happened prior to the judicial decision. In some nations that follow the Westminister system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as parliamentary supremacy allows the parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or written constitution this may prohibit ex post facto legislation.

United Kingdom - Ex post facto laws are permitted under the doctrine of the 'sovereignty of parliament'; in criminal law, however, ex post facto laws are prohibited by article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Please note the reference to Criminal Law. The rapist has not committed any form of crime in purchasing a lottery ticket, and if the government were to introduce a law, and backdate it to prevent anyone with a criminal record from purchasing a lottery ticket, youd have a spate of civil suits, not to mention Camelot going ****ing mental, and youd never get it passed.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

[edit to add - i hope this satisfies jonny in helping out the authoritarian side of the debate ]

Of course it will. How could anyone dare to refute the claims of the Sun?

[Kurashima]

The Sun is officially the 2nd worst paper in the UK

Marginally behind the Sunday Sport. It makes the Daily Star look like quality journalism.

[Sunday8pm]

The Sun is also owned by the same marvellous man who owns Fox.

[I am Idler]

actually he should be forced to get plastic surgery for 7 millions worth, seeming he is to unpretty to actually get laid the normal way

[Kurashima]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

actually he should be forced to get plastic surgery for 7 millions worth, seeming he is to unpretty to actually get laid the normal way

Idler , if he paid you enough, could you help him fake his own death?

[Sunday8pm]

Aren't people allowed to you know, not reveal that they won.

I'd assume in this case that the rapist let the cat out of the bag.

[Dante Hicks]

I haven't bought a ticket in some years, but isn't there a tick box to opt-out of publicity? Or is opt-in?

Either way he may just have ticked it without thinking about it, or not, etc, etc.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by the_dastardley_chihuahua

[edit to add - i hope this satisfies jonny in helping out the authoritarian side of the debate ]

I said the authoritarian, not the mindless.

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Idler , if he paid you enough, could you help him fake his own death?

I could do that for free if he would reveal to me where he lives

[queball]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

Please note the reference to Criminal Law. The rapist has not committed any form of crime in purchasing a lottery ticket, and if the government were to introduce a law, and backdate it to prevent anyone with a criminal record from purchasing a lottery ticket, youd have a spate of civil suits, not to mention Camelot going ****ing mental, and youd never get it passed.

Ok, it's not like this is actually going through. This isn't important enough, even for Mr. Blunkett. But parliament is mostly sovereign and I can imagine them overturning any particular priciple in exceptional circumstances. "Oi, part of the punishment is to be unhappy for the rest of your life!" Say I gave £7 million to every convicted rapist just for fun, would you say the same?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I said the authoritarian, not the mindless.

Actually, it's not really authotarianism people are arguing against. It's more against abritrary uses of power as a pointless bit of populism. If it was an established notion in law that you could be fined future wages as part of your punishment for violent crime I doubt people would mind too much.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Actually, it's not really authotarianism people are arguing against. It's more against abritrary uses of power as a pointless bit of populism. If it was an established notion in law that you could be fined future wages as part of your punishment for violent crime I doubt people would mind too much.

I would not be doing it as a whimsical use of power in order to have the sun acknowledge me as some form of demi-god. I* feel it's perfectly morally acceptable to take 7 million dollars from a convicted rapist and use it to benefit society.




*well not really, but from a certain perspective it would be.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I feel it's perfectly morally acceptable to take 7 million dollars from a convicted rapist and use it to benefit society.

That's fine, but most people are uncomfortable with the rule of law of being shifted that quickly. I don't doubt your motives are pure, but that doesn't make the policy any less horrid.

[queball]

Conservative! Don't you care about women?

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I* feel it's perfectly morally acceptable to take 7 million dollars from a convicted rapist and use it to benefit society.

The question is where you draw the line in subsequent cases. Do you take 7 million dollars from a man who cheats on his wife to benefit society? Or from someone who regularly runs red traffic lights? Or someone who is mean to old ladies on the street?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Leshy

The question is where you draw the line in subsequent cases. Do you take 7 million dollars from a man who cheats on his wife to benefit society? Or from someone who regularly runs red traffic lights? Or someone who is mean to old ladies on the street?

I'm drawing the line at severe crimes which are repeated. For example manslaughter would not be subject to this but multiple murder would be.

[Nodrog]

This is a pretty good example of why the government shouldnt be allowed to run a lottery in the current climate. It's also a good microcosmic example of the problems that are inherant in any scheme which allows the state to arbitarily pick and choose who 'deserves' to receive certain things.

[Smudge]

i tthink he shld donate the money to meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This is a pretty good example of why the government shouldnt be allowed to run a lottery in the current climate. It's also a good microcosmic example of the problems that are inherant in any scheme which allows the state to arbitarily pick and choose who 'deserves' to receive certain things.

See, this didn't make the thread half as interesting as my posts did!

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Kurashima

"They say jump you say how high"

RATM say: "Communism WORKS! Look at us! We're not hypocritical at all."

PS. We do happen to play good music though.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm drawing the line at severe crimes which are repeated. For example manslaughter would not be subject to this but multiple murder would be.

Although I would probably agree with your opinions on this matter, I'm interested to see you praise the government's stance considering your opposal to the drugs 'vaccine', in another thread, if I remember correctly.

[Dace]

One point ...

The wife says that she's gonna divorce him, take half his winnings and give them to the victims.

I read that they were married in the prison chapel and they haven't had sex.

If this is true doesn't that me the marriage hasn't been consumated.

Doesn't this also mean that the marriage can be annulled pretty easy.

Meaning he gets to keep all the money.



???!!!

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Although I would probably agree with your opinions on this matter, I'm interested to see you praise the government's stance considering your opposal to the drugs 'vaccine', in another thread, if I remember correctly.

The government aren't actually going to take the money off him. Please check the link again. Also people who take drugs aren't all multiple violent sex offenders or murderers.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Although I would probably agree with your opinions on this matter, I'm interested to see you praise the government's stance considering your opposal to the drugs 'vaccine', in another thread, if I remember correctly.

And he doesn't agree with what he is saying in this thread.

[Phang]

Iorworth Hoare, nearing the end of a life term

this made me lol.

I think a 'prisoners can't enter' clause should be introduced, but not a retroactive one. Surprising unusual and controversial viewpoint there.

Incidentally guys, I had something of an epiphany the other day where I was walking along down Penzance High Street and all of a sudden, completely out of the blue, I suddenly thought "What the bicycling christ have I been smoking the last few years to make me oppose the decriminalisation of drugs, bearing in mind that it isn't as if offences commited under the influence would be permitted or anything; and as such, my pro-illegality stance is in fact mindless, almost moralist authoritarianism and whoops there goes that belief out the window." Hooray!

PS Never come to Cornwall, it's horrible and dull and there are beaches and good weather but it's just ugh. And there are Cornish people for god's sake. :(

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

I think a 'prisoners can't enter' clause should be introduced, but not a retroactive one.

Why? What positive benefit will that bring?

And when you say prisoners, do you mean even after they've been released?

And hurrah on your epiphany.

[JonnyBGood]

Indeed hurrah!


I would not support banning prisoners from taking part though. Overall there's a positive expectancy in terms of financial gain from letting prisoners participate in the lottery though utilitarianly (is that even a word?) speaking it's a good idea.

[Sunday8pm]

If you observe the article closely you will see that prisoners are in fact prevented to take part in lotteries, except when they are nearing the end of their sentence and are in less security prisons etc etc, part of the whole redemption process I assume... you know returning their rights slowly so they can become an integrated member of society.

Personally the victims have already accepted what punishment has been delivered and it's ridiculous for them to keep demanding more just because he has come into fortune just as he is about to be released as a rehabilitated member of society.

I don't doubt they'd ask for the death penalty if they could of gotten it too, doesn't mean it's anymore rightful to expect.

Finally, why on earth did news of this get out? Was the prisoner stupid or were camelot playing on the whole, no publicity is bad publicity thing.

[Phang]

Why? What positive benefit will that bring?

well, at the most basic level, it helps the lottery hold on to the general 'positive effect on society' image that giving money to charities and swimming pools and all of that toss generates - think of the current Lotto ads, then insert the phrase 'and help violent serial offenders like these live it up in the carribean!' ...Yeah. Stopping prisoners from entering in the wake of this event would help camelot retain a larger number of Sun readers who would otherwise quit in protest than they would lose by removing prisoners.

Plus there's a general shiny happy moralist side which doesn't want all these violent bastards being given lots and lots of money

And when you say prisoners, do you mean even after they've been released?

No.

Finally, why on earth did news of this get out? Was the prisoner stupid or were camelot playing on the whole, no publicity is bad publicity thing.

If you were mister incarcerated violent rapist bastard, wouldn't you get a kick out of everyone knowing you'd won? Kind of a kick in the pants for authority and such

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

Yeah. Stopping prisoners from entering in the wake of this event would help camelot retain a larger number of Sun readers who would otherwise quit in protest than they would lose by removing prisoners.

And why is that a good thing (for you or I - not Camelot)? Why should we want people to engage in an incredibly inefficient form of gambling?

Besides, someone doesn't stop becoming a "violent serial offender" upon release. I don't see much difference between a murderer at the very end of his sentence winning the prize or them winning it 6 months down the line when they've been released.

[Phang]

And why is that a good thing (for you or I - not Camelot)? Why should we want people to engage in an incredibly inefficient form of gambling?

Because half the money (or whatever the figure is now) is reinvested into community projects through the lottery trusts and whatnot. Non-gamblers get all the benefits

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Besides, someone doesn't stop becoming a "violent serial offender" upon release. I don't see much difference between a murderer at the very end of his sentence winning the prize or them winning it 6 months down the line when they've been released.

From a legislative point of view, one has to assume that on release from prison, a person will be rehabilitated. Which is bollocks, obviously, but it's the best compromise between treating people as if they are certain to reoffend once released (draconian) and assuming that while in prison they should be treated as if they won't (bloody stupid). Being in prison inherently leads to a loss of rights, and should - I don't see gambling as being a particularly important one. My point has become bogged down in crap phrasing and tangents, but it's probably still there.

As a footnote, it strikes me that a 'criminals clause' would probably be introduced by Camelot rather than the state, so it isn't a legislative matter, but the principles are the same.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

Because half the money (or whatever the figure is now) is reinvested into community projects through the lottery trusts and whatnot. Non-gamblers get all the benefits

I'm not really sure the effects of the lottery on society are that plain. Undoubtedly it increases poverty among the poorest groups (albeit marginally) - which increases knock on problems for every one else. I think the country would be better overall if no-one gambled.

As a footnote, it strikes me that a 'criminals clause' would probably be introduced by Camelot rather than the state, so it isn't a legislative matter, but the principles are the same.

As they're a state enforced monopoly any rules they pass should really be vetted by the government. I don't really mind if William Hill pass a rule saying no black people can bet in their shops - there's plenty of other places they can take their money. However, if William Hill was the only bookies in the country then it'd be a different matter.

[Nadval]

hmm I actualy believe it is morally unjust that he should receive the money and thus believe a clause should be legislated preventing convicted criminals from entering the lottery, atleast during their prison sentance (after that he will have been considered 'rehabilitated' and let back into society as an equal). However i agree that the government couldn't possibly take his money away after allowing him to buy a ticket. If they proposed to criminalise say driving cars, it simply wouldn't be acceptable to arrest or fine all who have previously driven cars.

Originally Posted by Zar

Also criminals lives arent worth less than non-criminal person(s) lives. We are not deitys to assume that. They are only locked up because society does not accept their beliefs.

This is rediculous, criminals are obviously considered inferior in some way or another or they wouldn't have their freedom restricted. Their beliefs are destructive towards society, it's not that society doesn't accept their beliefs, it's that society has to defend itself from their beliefs. That isn't to say that i agree with all laws (i oppose most drug laws) but it is to say i respect the law and what it's there for: to protect us from eachother.

Originally Posted by Zar

just because he rapes people doesnt make him wrong - grr this requires a whole new thread on "morality and ethics: is there such thing as 'right' or 'wrong'?" but im too lazy to bother with that now

I posted in your morality thread; he is wrong because his actions are destructive. Unless you fight for the cause that we should live in an environment whereby 'survival of the fittest' is in place and all those who cannot defend themselves are left at the mercy of the physically capable, then his actions are morally wrong.

This government attempt at intervening does, on the other hand, show how fascist they are. Let's not mis-interpret fascist as 'right wing' (although new labour undoubtedly is), it means the centralisation of power. Attempting to intervene in what fundamentally has absolutely nothing to do with them is harmful to the system of democracy.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not really sure the effects of the lottery on society are that plain. Undoubtedly it increases poverty among the poorest groups (albeit marginally) - which increases knock on problems for every one else. I think the country would be better overall if no-one gambled.

I dunno about increasing poverty. It's not like "gambling" is something you can take away, or if you did take away gambling, people would decide to become frugal aristocrats. Maybe if we could make everyone more long-term oriented (glare glare glare) we would be better off, but I doubt that's any great insight.
We did the "why gambling is good" thing, it makes Saturdays/football/racing more enjoyable, y'know? The Lottery seems fairly efficient compared to other ways to get funds from A to B like small scale raffles, taxes, or fundraisers hassling people on the street.


So Phang, when heroin is legal everyone everyone will decide to avoid it rationally and not to become addicted?

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Zar

For some reason i find this incredibly wrong. No matter what is social status is - he should get his full money. None should go to pesky "rape" victims (half of who make their claims up in order to screw over men - thank you female biased laws). Regardless of that no one "deserves" to win the lottery, everything is gained through sheer luck - and he had the right luck on that day.

I find that attitude towards rape victims quite disgraceful. In actual fact most "pesky" rape victims do not win their case as they cannot prove they were forced. I feel that you would have a somewhat different view if you were female, being as you would be a much more likely victim. You complaining about female biased laws is a treat aswell, hello the last 10,000 years of male oppression: the law is there to defend women from that, considering many still hold sexist views. Not to mention the hypocritical side of your post. You describe taking a convicted criminal's lottery winnings away from his as "wrong" yet later state that rape isn't wrong because there is no right and wrong. It is obvious that you see right and wrong as what is constructive or destructive towards your opinion, but are unwilling to accept that other people have similar concepts of right and wrong.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I would not support banning prisoners from taking part though. Overall there's a positive expectancy in terms of financial gain from letting prisoners participate in the lottery though utilitarianly (is that even a word?) speaking it's a good idea.

You aren't against them taking part but you're against them winning? That seems like a very unfair system, either they can take part and win or they can't take part at all.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nadval

hmm I actualy believe it is morally unjust that he should receive the money and thus believe a clause should be legislated preventing convicted criminals from entering the lottery, atleast during their prison sentance (after that he will have been considered 'rehabilitated' and let back into society as an equal). However i agree that the government couldn't possibly take his money away after allowing him to buy a ticket. If they proposed to criminalise say driving cars, it simply wouldn't be acceptable to arrest or fine all who have previously driven cars.

But apparently that's exactly the case for violent criminals - they can't get out, so they can't buy a ticket. He happened to go to a minimum security prison for the end of his sentence, perhaps his life clock turned green and he wasn't considered so bad. So are you saying:
- all prisoners should be denied from playing the lottery
or
- rapists should be given the worst status of badness, denied from playing the lottery, for their whole sentence
- even minimum security prisoners shouldn't buy tickets

and why?

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I find that attitude towards rape victims quite disgraceful. In actual fact most "pesky" rape victims do not win their case as they cannot prove they were forced. I feel that you would have a somewhat different view if you were female, being as you would be a much more likely victim. You complaining about female biased laws is a treat aswell, hello the last 10,000 years of male oppression: the law is there to defend women from that, considering many still hold sexist views.

thats what they WANT you to think. In league with the lizard people, who are really the jews. Backed up by the reverse vampires.

on a more serious note, there are many female biased laws around, one obvious example would be the implicit assumption in the UK that children should go and live with their mothers after a divorce rather than their fathers. Hence the pressure group 'fathers for justice' or whatever its called.

also, a cry of 'RAPE RAPE' from a woman is one of the quickest ways to make all reason leave a discussion. For what other crime would there be a national outcry over a lottery win? its absurd.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

thats what they WANT you to think. In league with the lizard people, who are really the jews. Backed up by the reverse vampires.

on a more serious note, there are many female biased laws around, one obvious example would be the implicit assumption in the UK that children should go and live with their mothers after a divorce rather than their fathers. Hence the pressure group 'fathers for justice' or whatever its called.

also, a cry of 'RAPE RAPE' from a woman is one of the quickest ways to make all reason leave a discussion. For what other crime would there be a national outcry over a lottery win? its absurd.

Murder? Paedophilia? Robbery? It's the immoral nature of the crime which has caused a 'national outcry'. I think you're being very insensitive to the many people who are actualy rape victims and lose their case due to opinions like yours. Unfortunately it's difficult to determine which are genuine accusations and which are false, but let's not belittle the genuine victims by calling them 'pesky' or whatever.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nadval

You aren't against them taking part but you're against them winning? That seems like a very unfair system, either they can take part and win or they can't take part at all.

Who says society should treat you the same as everyone else when you're a violent convicted multiple rapist?

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

Hence the pressure group 'fathers for justice' or whatever its called.

Almost right; it's actually the far more retarded "Fathers 4 Justice".

[Sarina_Joy]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Paedophilia?

/nick Ninja_spammer being too lazy to log out and log back in


That is not a crime btw, felt you should be corrected.

Child abuse however is.

[Tactitus]

I view state-run lotteries as a tax on stupidity. Therefore, the state welching on paying some of the winners would be entirely in keeping with the spirit of the program.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Who says society should treat you the same as everyone else when you're a violent convicted multiple rapist?

That's not the point. It's idiotic to believe that they should be allowed to buy tickets but not allowed to win. Disallowing them from buying tickets isn't treating them the same as everyone else, that's the point.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nadval

That's not the point. It's idiotic to believe that they should be allowed to buy tickets but not allowed to win. Disallowing them from buying tickets isn't treating them the same as everyone else, that's the point.

On a long enough timeline nobody wins from the lottery. I'm just enforcing reality.

Frankly I have no problem with criminals convicted of serious crimes giving their money to, what I view, as a good cause. I do however have a problem with them benefitting in excess of their contribution. That said I, in my hauteur, would not see anything wrong with him winning after he'd purchased 7 million lottery tickets.

[Nadval]

what you're saying jonny is like saying "i don't mind criminals voting, as long as their candidate doesn't win." You can't allow someone to take part in a gambling game if they aren't allowed to win.

[queball]

He would win the lottery, the state would just spend his winnings on his behalf in the interests of justice.

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I view state-run lotteries as a tax on stupidity. Therefore, the state welching on paying some of the winners would be entirely in keeping with the spirit of the program.

I like this take on the spirit of the law. I suggest that since prisons are effectively designed to mess people up for life, any chance they have of enjoying themselves should be fixed promptly.