This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Rankkor
yeah, I mean really, giving 75000 dollars to the family is gonna bankrupt the government?
That indicates 2 things. Either your economy is in worse shape than I thought, or you guys make millions of "mistakes" like this every day, and remunerating all of them combined would bankrupt you.
Either isn't exactly pretty.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Who said anything about bankrupting? I was responding to Eccentrica's mention of cigars and martinis.
Post by
Eccentrica
You do realize that the money would come out of the operating budget of Child Services or whatever agency is involved, right? There isn't some evil rich guy who's making money off this family's misfortune.
What I am saying is that the government (all of them, yours mine doesn't matter) wastes so much money on a regular basis that wrongly accused citizens
should
be compensated from the public purse. Even if you turn a blind eye and ignore the trough from which Congress, Parliament etc feed, the amount of money wasted by departments in the last month of the fiscal is enough to make anyone ill.
Ever worked for government? I have. In the first two months of the fiscal year you have to practically
beg
for a pencil from the supply room. In the last two months of the fiscal year its a damned free for all of spending (necessary and utterly unnecessary) in a mad rush to spend it all, because if they run under budget, next years budget will be reduced.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
yeah, I mean really, giving 75000 dollars to the family is gonna bankrupt the government?
That indicates 2 things. Either your economy is in worse shape than I thought, or you guys make millions of "mistakes" like this every day, and remunerating all of them combined would bankrupt you.
Either isn't exactly pretty.
For one family, no. For every investigation that is found to be not a case of abuse, every time they don't find enough evidence to make a case, and every time someone is found not guilty, then yes.
Also, the state offers public defenders for criminal cases- they were willing to pay for a free lawyer for the family. The family chose to pay for a private lawyer instead. If there is a state funded legal defense available, and they chose a more expensive one, should the state be forced to pay whatever lawyer they choose?
Also, yes- if I had to lose my house rather than have 100 children tortured, raped and murdered, I would do it. Without a second thought.
Post by
Squishalot
75,000 dollars pays for a couple of case workers, who can look monitor 40 kids/families each (assuming 2 visits a day).
If I can suggest a more tame, less extreme case:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-investigate-frolicking-child-20130504-2izt3.html
Would you have society or the police do anything different here?
Post by
Rankkor
For one family, no. For every investigation that is found to be not a case of abuse, every time they don't find enough evidence to make a case, and every time someone is found not guilty, then yes.
well........
That indicates 2 things. Either your economy is in worse shape than I thought, or you guys make millions of "mistakes" like this every day, and remunerating all of them combined would bankrupt you.
Also, the state offers public defenders for criminal cases- they were willing to pay for a free lawyer for the family. The family chose to pay for a private lawyer instead. If there is a state funded legal defense available, and they chose a more expensive one, should the state be forced to pay whatever lawyer they choose?
This bit I didn't knew. I was basing myself on our legal system, were free lawyers don't exist, and every time the law wrongfully acuses you (which is all the damned time) YOU cover the entire expenses.
Also, yes- if I had to lose my house rather than have 100 children tortured, raped and murdered, I would do it. Without a second thought
Meh. I'd rather the law punished criminals without bleeding me dry and using me as a scapegoat.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What I am saying is that the government (all of them, yours mine doesn't matter) wastes so much money on a regular basis that wrongly accused citizens
should
be compensated from the public purse. Even if you turn a blind eye and ignore the trough from which Congress, Parliament etc feed, the amount of money wasted by departments in the last month of the fiscal is enough to make anyone ill.
Ever worked for government? I have. In the first two months of the fiscal year you have to practically
beg
for a pencil from the supply room. In the last two months of the fiscal year its a damned free for all of spending (necessary and utterly unnecessary) in a mad rush to spend it all, because if they run under budget, next years budget will be reduced.
We waste money, therefore we should introduce this new expense? I don't follow the logic.
Post by
Rankkor
What I am saying is that the government (all of them, yours mine doesn't matter) wastes so much money on a regular basis that wrongly accused citizens
should
be compensated from the public purse. Even if you turn a blind eye and ignore the trough from which Congress, Parliament etc feed, the amount of money wasted by departments in the last month of the fiscal is enough to make anyone ill.
Ever worked for government? I have. In the first two months of the fiscal year you have to practically
beg
for a pencil from the supply room. In the last two months of the fiscal year its a damned free for all of spending (necessary and utterly unnecessary) in a mad rush to spend it all, because if they run under budget, next years budget will be reduced.
We waste money, therefore we should use it for a more wise cause, such as remunerating victims of the mistakes of our system.
Fixed.
/sighs
This is why I don't debate often. Why I'd rather debate about silly/fake things such as imperials vs stormcloaks, or alliance vs horde, or who'd win in a fight between Luke Skywalker vs Frodo.
But on this particular topic I feel strongly about it, because I've been wronged by the law before, and I chalked it up to "well, the law on my country sucks". but now I see a couple, on a country that is supposed to be more "fair" than mine go through something even worse (being labeled as sex offenders) and the same outcome happens.
There is no justice in this world.
Post by
Eccentrica
So El, you would happily be rendered homeless if the state wrongly accused you of molesting your own children? You would gleefully whisk away your kids college fund to pay the lawyers bill after having done nothing wrong?
I don't think anyone could live with themselves knowing full well that children were being hurt, we would sacrifice to save children. Think of how those two kids are going to be raised now that their parents have been bankrupted by this. Furthermore, if you were facing the fight of your life (and I can't imagine anything more important than fighting for my kids), would
you
really want a Public Defender? I sure as hell wouldn't.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What I am saying is that the government (all of them, yours mine doesn't matter) wastes so much money on a regular basis that wrongly accused citizens
should
be compensated from the public purse. Even if you turn a blind eye and ignore the trough from which Congress, Parliament etc feed, the amount of money wasted by departments in the last month of the fiscal is enough to make anyone ill.
Ever worked for government? I have. In the first two months of the fiscal year you have to practically
beg
for a pencil from the supply room. In the last two months of the fiscal year its a damned free for all of spending (necessary and utterly unnecessary) in a mad rush to spend it all, because if they run under budget, next years budget will be reduced.
We waste money, therefore we should use it for a more wise cause, such as remunerating victims of the mistakes of our system.
Fixed.
The logic still doesn't follow. Whether the government is wasting money or not and what the state owes people they investigate who turn out to be innocent are still different issues that have no bearing on each other.
Post by
Eccentrica
What I am saying is that the government (all of them, yours mine doesn't matter) wastes so much money on a regular basis that wrongly accused citizens
should
be compensated from the public purse. Even if you turn a blind eye and ignore the trough from which Congress, Parliament etc feed, the amount of money wasted by departments in the last month of the fiscal is enough to make anyone ill.
Ever worked for government? I have. In the first two months of the fiscal year you have to practically
beg
for a pencil from the supply room. In the last two months of the fiscal year its a damned free for all of spending (necessary and utterly unnecessary) in a mad rush to spend it all, because if they run under budget, next years budget will be reduced.
We waste money, therefore we should use it for a more wise cause, such as remunerating victims of the mistakes of our system.
Fixed.
The logic still doesn't follow. Whether the government is wasting money or not and what the state owes people they investigate who turn out to be innocent are still different issues that have no bearing on each other.
It has a great deal of bearing. Wouldn't it be grand if we could spend the public's money properly? Living in a dream world, I know.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Would I be gleeful? No. Would I seek to rework the legal system for my own benefit, knowing that it would destroy its ability to protect the public properly. No.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It has a great deal of bearing. Wouldn't it be grand if we could spend the public's money properly? Living in a dream world, I know.
Of course it would. It would also be grand if money grew on trees and we could give these people all the money back they need. But the question of whether the government should develop money-growing trees has nothing to do with the issue, just like the question of cutting down government waste has nothing to do with the issue. The question of whether the government owes them money is an objective question that isn't dependent on how much money the government is wasting or how many money growing trees it has.
Post by
Rankkor
it would destroy its ability to protect the public properly. No.
If their ability to protect the people can be destroyed that easy, I'm not really motivated to ever move there.
Post by
MyTie
But the question of whether the government should develop money-growing trees
The trees would cost a billion dollars each, grow a hundred dollars a year, and all be given to Libya, who would use them to buy arms from Russia to attack us with.
Post by
Eccentrica
Well, I think what has happened to this family is damned shame. I would bleed myself dry for my kids. Die and kill for my kids. If anyone did to me what was done to this family I would fight for recompense to the end of my days.
The thought of the medical examinations those poor frightened kids bereft of the parents that love them had to endure breaks my heart. Now the family is piss broke, so those kids won't have access to the sorts of things they had prospects of before.
They were destroyed to protect them. Isn't that nice. Maybe next the fire department will burn down their house to make sure the smoke alarms work.
But hey, I guess that's part of the territory isn't it. Maybe the US should just go ahead and prosecute all the parents in the country just to make sure that no potential molesters get away with it. Totally worth it right?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But the question of whether the government should develop money-growing trees
The trees would cost a billion dollars each, grow a hundred dollars a year, and all be given to Libya, who would use them to buy arms from Russia to attack us with.
I think we'd probably trade them to China for some of our debt with them and they would then build cheap knockoff sweatshop versions that they would sell back to us, so that within 20 years there would be one in every American home.
Post by
Eccentrica
But the question of whether the government should develop money-growing trees
The trees would cost a billion dollars each, grow a hundred dollars a year, and all be given to Libya, who would use them to buy arms from Russia to attack us with.
If we could upvote forum comments I would have done so here.
Post by
MyTie
Blacks can be racist.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.