Spank! Teen and Youth Culture Online : a website with news and forums for teens and youthTeens read this website, youth read this website.
Forums Login About Spank! Home

Often rated a Cool Site for Teens and Youth. love life, be a teen lot of people use the site
  New to Spank! Want a little info about this site? :: log in we run a www directory to add your URL too
RECENT THREADS:: What are you EXCITED about? (181/L) :::: (expand list) (random 5) (tagwall)
lot of people use the site
Forum Index > Random Taggings > Question your Peers!
Click to post a reply!
Ex-Cons and T.V. (43 posts)
Showing posts 1 to 20 : Next 20--> :
OR jump to page:  1  2  3 

Secrets*Untold
(512k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Click for profile 		A man won £1,000,000 (thats one million right?) the other night on a quiz show (I use the word quiz very very liberally here)

And the guy had admitted to producers that he had been previously jailed for aggravated burglary and assault, the sentance totalling 5 yrs and him serving 2.5 (difference sentances to what I orginally heard on the news today)....he claimed the victim was male. It later turns out that the victim was female, his ex girlfriend.

Now my questions are:

Should the man have been allowed on the show in the first place?

Morally speaking, are the producers right in their decision to allow him on?

As he lied to the producers about the circumstances of his conviction should he be forced to pay back the money?

Does it make any difference that it was a female instead of male victim?

And any other points?

[This post edited by Secrets*Untold on 06 September 2011 ]

quote / posted 06 September 2011 4:54 AM
Secrets*Untold
(512k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Click for profile 		And my opinion on this is:

He shouldn't have been allowed on the show, legally, the rehabillitation of offenders act doesn't protect him, so therefore they could have declined his application. The producers didn't act in a moral way (which Im not surprised at, but its a tv show aimed at family veiwing, think about the morals maybe please?)

I think that he should be made to pay the money back, not as such because he beat a woman up, that seems kind of invalid in this argument, but more because he lied. And most contracts stipulate that in the case of dishonesty, all gains will have to be repaid. Also, I stand by the whole point of ya know, hes a criminal, of a pretty low standard (he broke into his exes house at night and beat her half to death in a fit of jealousy) is that the type of man that deserves the money?

To me, in this instance, that the victim was female makes no difference. Violence in any capacity is vile and should be punished with the full force of the law, and in my opinion he hasnt "learnt" (since being released he's commited another case of violence against someone) and therefore I believe he should be rejailed to further protect the public.
quote / posted 06 September 2011 4:59 AM
69_02
(370k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Click for profile 		i don't think most daytime tv quiz shows pay out according to worthiness, so the idea that he doesn't "deserve" the money is sort of void. i'm imagining it was on something like deal or no deal, which is basically just gambling filmed with a live audience, in which case, i fail to see a major difference between this and winning a million pounds in a casino.

considering that previous convictions can't be taken account in trials in the uk judicial system, i think it's somewhat far-fetched to think that they should be in this case. i don't think it matters if the victim was male or female, and while there may be moral distaste at the fact he's become a millionaire, i don't think you can ask him to pay back the money just because people don't think it's "fair" that he wins.
quote / posted 06 September 2011 6:52 AM
supporter graphic  Dante
(386k) Adored
Shoegazer
Click for profile
quote:
The producers didn't act in a moral way


I always shutter at the idea of a shared moral consciousness.

I think he should have been allowed on television. to disallow him is the worse kind of censorship. His rehabilitation is less a process as it is a method.

I find it more interesting how you interpret a quiz show. A quiz show, after all, requires it's winners to be good at a specific skill set and the opportunity to participate.. There is no morality involved. If he had violated ether, then yes, he shouldn't. Instead i argue the morality of having producers, whose field isn't law or morality, to judge and exclude a person based on their (your) preferences.
quote / posted 06 September 2011 7:26 AM
supporter graphic  Un-Jelli
(321k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Moderator
Click for profile 		I do believe that people who have previously been convicted of crimes should be allowed onto these programs, much like everyone else. however, I would see it as a reason to kick someone off, should they have lied when answering questions about their history. Examples, failing to mention, or changing previous convictions, could be listed here. So could other things like making up children, or ailing parents for sympathy, etc.
quote / posted 06 September 2011 8:11 AM
DementedLeaf
(171k) Loved
Spank! UltraStar
Click for profile 		I disapprove of the lying and would probably be tempted to scare him, if I were in a position to do so, with the idea (but just the idea) that his winnings could be taken from him due to this dishonesty.

The actual crime, though... he's been judged already and apparently served his sentence. As for doing a similar thing after being let out, again, it's for the courts to decide. Bad, yes, but it's just not for the game show people to decide a suitable punishment for that.
quote / posted 06 September 2011 9:34 AM
Secrets*Untold
(512k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Click for profile 		I think that the fact he lied about it is what people should be pulling him up on, not what he did.

And it was a prime time evening show which involved guessing whether or not somtehing was going to be red or black
quote / posted 06 September 2011 1:34 PM
smurf19
(586k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Moderator
Click for profile 		He didn't lie about committing assault. He was upfront about that. So to me, it's a moot point whether he assaulted a man or a woman, assault is assault. The tv show was aware of his conviction when they had him on the show. I don't see on what grounds they could withdraw his prize. If he had said that he was convicted of stealing a washer, when in fact, he stole a dryer, should he have his prize revoked? To me, it makes no difference.

I also think you're mixing up the role of TV and the justice system. If he's committed crimes since leaving prison, it's up to the justice system to determine if he should go back to jail, not the TV show.

By your logic, once a person has been convicted of one crime, even after having served their time in prison, they should be treated differently from the general populace. That they aren't as deserving, or that society should continue to punish them for actions that they've already been punished for. Unfortunately, it's this kind of attitude that often lead to people committing more crime, since they often are treated as second class citizens and can't find decent work or opportunities in the community.
quote / posted 06 September 2011 4:27 PM
Secrets*Untold
(512k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Click for profile 		In no way am I mixing up the TV show and the Justice System roles .... more pointing out that he hasnt changed, and without change rehabillitation isnt possible. And the purpose of jail isnt a punishment to the person commiting the crime, but as a measure of protection for the public. I didn't explain it like that, but thats my belief.

I think whether someone should be treated differently or not depends upon the crime to be honest. Petty theft....eh so long as they dont reoffend then fine whatevs. Child rape? Then yes, they should be treated differently, they shouldnt be allowed near children, they shouldnt be allowed to places that are primarily frequented by children etc etc....

Whilst I agree in essence with what you're saying (I said myself man or woman, its still a crime) he clearly (by he I mean the winner) doesn't, otherwise he would have been honest about it. And instead of saying "I went through a bad patch and beat up a man who was trying to sleep with my girlfriend - even though she wasnt happy with his advances" (as it was alleged he said) he would have said "I broke into my ex girlfriends house in the dead of night and then spent a decent amount of time beating her half to death and then stealing from her", (as is what actually happened if various sources are to be believed)...the latter would have probably prevented him getting on the show in the first place (if what Mr Cowell has said is to be believed)....if you were to lie to an employer in that way you would potentially stand to lose your job....
quote / posted 07 September 2011 1:46 AM
Secrets*Untold
(512k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Click for profile
quoting: 69_02
i don't think most daytime tv quiz shows pay out according to worthiness, so the idea that he doesn't "deserve" the money is sort of void. i'm imagining it was on something like deal or no deal, which is basically just gambling filmed with a live audience, in which case, i fail to see a major difference between this and winning a million pounds in a casino.

that previous convictions can't be taken account in trials in the uk judicial system, i think it's somewhat far-fetched to think that they should be in this case. i don't think it matters if the victim was male or female, and while there may be moral distaste at the fact he's become a millionaire, i don't think you can ask him to pay back the money just because people don't think it's "fair" that he wins.


Only in the case of the trial in which youre trying to influence whether or not someone is found guilty. In the case of suspended sentances, or sentencing in itself (yes i tried both spellings, its early i wasnt sure which was correct) then previous convictions can be taken into account and usually are.

E.G. A woman is on a suspended sentence for beating her best friend up after finding her in bed with her hubby. Judge is lenient given the situation. Suspended sentence, as long as she doesn't reoffend with that crime in the next...18 months all is forgotten, 10 months later she beats up some woman in the supermarket....the previous case would be taken into account when trialling and sentencing....
quote / posted 07 September 2011 1:50 AM
MackLovesChachi
(523k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Moderator
Click for profile 		Well, now the dude has a million dollars, that usually cuts back on the instance of burgling.
quote / posted 07 September 2011 3:20 AM
supporter graphic  tripod2000
(368k) Adored
The Grand Daddy
Click for profile 		Was he still on parole for the remaining 2.5 years of his sentance? In which case no, he shouldn't be able to be on the TV show, win the money etc IMHO.

Otherwise he did the crime, did the time and society must welcome him back with open arms. Oh a giant metal breastplate but open arms none the less.
quote / posted 07 September 2011 4:21 AM
Secrets*Untold
(512k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Click for profile 		He was still on parole
quote / posted 08 September 2011 2:36 AM
supporter graphic  tripod2000
(368k) Adored
The Grand Daddy
Click for profile 		Then yeah, I have a problem.
quote / posted 08 September 2011 5:01 AM
supporter graphic  Un-Jelli
(321k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Moderator
Click for profile 		I agree, maybe putting a man who's on parole for a violent crime on TV, then giving him the chance to win a bucket load of money really isn't the wisest choice.
quote / posted 08 September 2011 1:18 PM
supporter graphic  Dante
(386k) Adored
Shoegazer
Click for profile
quoting: tripod2000
Then yeah, I have a problem.


I was thinking on my way back from shit boring meeting about posting on a topic that really bugs me. but i think i can apply it in terms of this.

I started thinking about total altruism applied to philosophical beliefs. Democracy for one. When democracy was 'threatened' by the competing philosophy of communism, the west began an altruistic view of democracy, positioning communism as evil.

While the opinion on this may be debatable, the evil of communism was exaggerated. Even more contentious, perhaps, is that the altruism of democracy isn't inherent.

I think the above is an example of a similar view to the western legal system.


I am a firm believer in rehabilitation over punishment. as a race we are a collection of randomized opinions, capabilities and persona's. IF we are interested in fairness, we have to be interested in inclusion. I don't approve of violent offenders but suggest there may be a different means of rehabilitating them into a society other than making them different legally to everyone in society.

I never got why criminals can't vote. George Washington was a criminal after all. A violent terrorist if we wanted to be technical. a criminals political beliefs shouldn't be limited in a democracy as criminal is too broad a term. this is exclusionary thinking.

I don't think violence is a solution to anything and i don't advocate it. But i think that the people who do believe in such should be censored from speaking their minds because i disagree with their methods. this goes for politics and fiscal influence.

#notesseveralcontroversialoppinions
quote / posted 08 September 2011 2:10 PM
Secrets*Untold
(512k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Click for profile 		In regards to criminals and the vote, my personal belief is that whilst in prison, every thing apart from basic needs for existing should be denied to you, so to me that means you get hygeine (showers, teeth cleaning, etc) food and water, a crossword and an hour daily for exercise (to prevent brain and body mush) and access to basic medical things (e.g. antibiotics if you've got an infection, but no you can't have a fucking brace on your teeth) but rights to voting, television etc are banned. These are things you've sacrificed by breaking the law and being found guilty by your peers. Do I make sense?

However, upon release from jail, and parole etc, so the punishment has been served, then depending on crime you get your life back to normal, with the right to vote and freedom of movement etc. I say "depending on crime" because no, terrorists shouldn't be allowed to go back to the area they have strong connection with sympathisers, peadophiles shouldn't be allowed to work with children, murderers/rapists etc shouldn't be able to work as doctors etc.
quote / posted 09 September 2011 1:26 AM
supporter graphic  Dante
(386k) Adored
Shoegazer
Click for profile 		No, it doesn't really make sense to me. Punitive law disgusts me. I don't think anyone has the right to punish a human being because they are incapable of fitting a society they had no choice to partake in. There is nothing corrective about removing their rights to vote. I argue the same about access to money. If someone is having trouble belonging to a society, no matter how fucked up you and i might think their beliefs and lives are, isn't it only fair they be allowed to try to change it?
quote / posted 09 September 2011 5:09 AM
supporter graphic  tripod2000
(368k) Adored
The Grand Daddy
Click for profile
quote:
I don't think anyone has the right to punish a human being because they are incapable of fitting a society they had no choice to partake in


We are merely pack animals. If a member of the pack is incapable of fitting in with the pack they get left in the wild or put to death. Sure the odd bite and growl may be given to try to get them to understand the way the pack works but there has to be an ultimate end. To think we are higher than animals is a vain conceit.
quote / posted 09 September 2011 5:44 AM
supporter graphic  Un-Jelli
(321k) Adored
Spank! UltraStar
Moderator
Click for profile 		The reason I understand removing voting rights is that they aren't, for the time that they are in jail, members of society. Although I understand that what is decided in elections still effects them, I think that they are in prison as a time of reflection and (in an ideal world, at least) to become rehabilitated. Until then, they aren't full members of society, and as such, cannot vote in elections meant for that greater society.
quote / posted 09 September 2011 11:49 AM

Showing posts 1 to 20 : Next 20--> :
OR jump to page:  1  2  3 
Click to post a reply! 		love life, be a teen New www directory of cool teen wensites. Add your today.


CondoFeed Blog Topics
Toronto Municipality: The Big Tax Loser with a Condo Bubble Burst
14 May 2012

HOA Hires Taser Wielding Guards for 3AM Eviction
04 May 2012

TD Canada Trust Condo Poll Results – Owners Confuse Fees with Rent
19 April 2012

247Condo Receives Consulting Recommendation
16 April 2012

When Considering a Condominium Purchase, Check How Long the President Has Ruled the Roost
10 April 2012

fun trustworthy and safe
Often rated a Cool Site for Teens and Youth.love life, be a teen
Quick Search Spank!: 		love life, be a teen New www directory of cool teen wensites. Add your today.fun trustworthy and safe
Often rated a Cool Site for Teens and Youth.love life, be a teen
Spank - the longest running youth e.magazine @ 6078 days!
Our Tag lines: Youth Culture Online :: Youth by Youth :: Youth Culture Defined By Youth :: Spankmag.com
built and powered with lopedia portal code
:: in support with CondoPapers :: in support with CondoTop ::



top :: home :: LOG IN :: copyright 1995 - 2012, 2012 :: Click for Random
 love life, be a teen New www directory of cool teen wensites. Add your today.New www directory of cool teen wensites. Add your today.

fun trustworthy and safe