So, they'll pretty much suffer society's punishment until they die, so why not just kill them? That would also be safer for everybody else. As for the wrongfully convicted, they're going to be screwed anyway.

Sal...here's a link for a site that has a lot of information about registered sex offenders, in the US and in the UK....

Link

It's disturbing....the amount we have living in my area and the area we're moving to.....good to know, though.

If people want to take the time to go look at the registry either online or at their local Sheriff's Department, they can do so. In my experience, most people don't bother.

That's the problem, people don't bother, so they can in thoery just go on living their lives with no one knowing any better

So, they'll pretty much suffer society's punishment until they die, so why not just kill them? That would also be safer for everybody else. As for the wrongfully convicted, they're going to be screwed anyway.

I see your point here. As said above though they can pretty much live life unknown, though when trying to find work and so on it will be difficult. It would be safer though if they were capable of doing it again.

Sal...here's a link for a site that has a lot of information about registered sex offenders, in the US and in the UK....

Thanks Dharma, I'm off to check it out now!

He should keep the winnings. Winnings do not discrimate race, colour, or life experience. They were never meant to. If he was out on day parole he had either served most of his time or was out on good behaviour. If the time was indeed served, attaching a stigma is emotional and judgement clouding.

What you are asking Sally is what sins cannot be forgiven with of randoms acts of fortune? Extrapolating with this line of thought would be retro puritan. You could damn an alcoholic's weakness for drink, a single unwed mother as a whore, or a gambler as a leach. When do the unholy thoughts stop? It stops when one stops labelling people.

If he reoffends than yes I agree the victims should sue the pants off him. Until then he should be left alone.

Reply #34 By: JakeD (Anonymous) - 8/12/2004 10:33:21 AM He should keep the winnings. Winnings do not discrimate race, colour, or life experience. They were never meant to. If he was out on day parole he had either served most of his time or was out on good behaviour.

No, it doesn't mean either of those things.  The guy in question is a habitual offender.  He's in prison.  Being in prison is a punishment,and he wasn't supposed to play the lottery in the first place.  He broke the rules when he bought the ticket. 

I read the paper this morning and it said that his ex-wife is suing him for the cash.  She says that is she wins she'll use the cash to help his victims.  The victims are being encourged to sue by members of the legal profession.  I personally hope that they do, and I hope that they win.  They deserve the money more tha  he does.

The victims are being encourged to sue by members of the legal profession. I personally hope that they do, and I hope that they win. They deserve the money more tha he does.

Shocking! Lawyers telling people to sue? Remind me, what's 1/3 of $7mil (even after taxes)?

As for "Is this fair?" I don't think you can argue that. It's the lottery. And incidentally, one of my math professors calls lottery "the stupid tax." I guess this guy is just really stupid.

I expected the risk of reoffense to pop up. Alot can change in the 18 years of imprisonment. The only way is to see if he reoffends. Making a claim here is the same as making a claim that any proceeds he could earns after prison are not his. This idea parades around as a court decision but lacks a judicial body of legislation to guide it. This is OJ all over again. He's guilty. No he's not. Ok but give me a lot of restitition to make me feel better. Can you say GREED?

I can understand any costs accrued during his stay. They would act as a loan. Same goes for any reimbursment to the victims at the time of the trial. Contesting money he "might" make is an unofficial claim on his privacy. His privacy is prison in your business. Out of prison it is not. This is the same as money allocation after a divorce. What money entered the relationship is split. What is made after the break up is not for you, me, or anyone else to spend regardless of the offense. PERIOD

Another problem that arises is if people do succeed in getting inmates to pay, doesn't this cast the court system in a bad light? Appeals are one thing but if I don't like the result I'll waste the court's time again and again until one gets the answer they want. What happened to all decisions are final? Court manipulation stinks because it paints all affected by the system with same brush. All are sinners and degree doesn't matter. Anti-misogynism should not masquerade as common sense on property rights!

"That's not a bad idea actually. Death to all rapists."

In ancient times the punishment for rape was up there with the punishment for murder: death.

So in this enlightened age where rapists serve time, we have to ask who changed?

God certainly hasn't..."

Remind me, what's 1/3 of $7mil (even after taxes)?

Actually, the solicitors that are telling people to sue are from the compensation board.  This is in England, not the US.  They're advising people to take legal action because the statute of limitations has expired and people don't think that they can.

 

I don't claim to be enlightened, I just think that these people should not be allowed to live. By all means let them keep the money. And kill them. Habitual offense should never be a question, because we should never, never allow them the opportunity.

Other people who fit in this category are:
murderers,
terrorists,
people who commit espionage/high treason,
pedophiles,
most drug pushers,
Michael Moore,
and people who use blogs for advertisement

Michael Moore, and people who use blogs for advertisement

Ah hahahahah! 

That was good.......!!!!

 

Ah. So 7 mil quid is more like $3.7 mil. Well then, I still don't care. Let the guy have his money. It's not up to the rest of us to make good people rich and bad people poor. Even if this is England, we're not Robin Hood.

As for killing rapists, pleeeeease. Would you draw the line at statutory rapists, or would you kill an 18-year-old US boy who had sex with his 17-year-old GF? Also, the rape laws are crap in America. All a girl has to do to ruin a guy's life is cry "Rape!" and, to use a phrase of Muggaz's, BAM! There goes career, family, character, etc.

'Course I'm anti-death penalty 'cause it's crap, too. In America it is not cheaper to execute someone, thanks to the appeals process. Fix it or get rid of it.

Wow I didn't realise how people would respond to this, but ok, lets have a look....

What you are asking Sally is what sins cannot be forgiven with of randoms acts of fortune? Extrapolating with this line of thought would be retro puritan. You could damn an alcoholic's weakness for drink, a single unwed mother as a whore, or a gambler as a leach. When do the unholy thoughts stop? It stops when one stops labelling people.

The difference here is that rape is illegal. To label someone because they commited a crime is wrong? No rape and murder and other such things are wrong, they earned the title themselves.

As for "Is this fair?" I don't think you can argue that. It's the lottery. And incidentally, one of my math professors calls lottery "the stupid tax." I guess this guy is just really stupid.

...that made me smile, very true words

I read the paper this morning and it said that his ex-wife is suing him for the cash. She says that is she wins she'll use the cash to help his victims. The victims are being encourged to sue by members of the legal profession. I personally hope that they do, and I hope that they win. They deserve the money more tha he does.

Thanks for looking it up Dharma, I didn't see this, but I hope she does it!

His privacy is prison in your business. Out of prison it is not. This is the same as money allocation after a divorce. What money entered the relationship is split. What is made after the break up is not for you, me, or anyone else to spend regardless of the offense. PERIOD

If we're just going by the facts that is correct, if we're going for the moral question does he deserve the money, the answer is no. Having said that, that question could be stretched to anyone, rapist or not!

In ancient times the punishment for rape was up there with the punishment for murder: death.So in this enlightened age where rapists serve time, we have to ask who changed?God certainly hasn't..."

There's something to think about.....what is it they say, not all change is good?

Michael Moore,and people who use blogs for advertisement

As for killing rapists, pleeeeease. Would you draw the line at statutory rapists, or would you kill an 18-year-old US boy who had sex with his 17-year-old GF?

You can't go around just killing people, I don't agree with the death penalty at all. Blatant rape acts are wrong, and they deserve to die, in my opinion. However because of the things mentioned above that won't happen, human life is to much of a thing to risk.

Thanks for all the comments guys.

Actually 7 million UK pounds is more like 12.5 million US dollars.

The UK prison system does not allow full time prisoners play the lottery. prisoners who have servesd over half their sentence and who are on day release due to good behaviour are allowed play the lottery. Therefore he won the money legally and is entitled to keep it.

As for sueing him for the money for previous crimes or relationships, it's very very unlikely to succeed, just cost lots of legal costs. The only time such claims work is if the gain in income is directly related to the crime or previous relationship. In this case it is not. So no joy there. And do you really think any previous victim would want the entire nightmare brought back to courts again?

No, the only real possibility here is for the man himself to feel remorse and divert some of that money towards rape crisis support centres.

I suppose the prison board may consider lack of such a gesture as a sign that he hasn't shown remorse and then refuse to release him early for good behaviour. Could leave him back in prison for another few years longer than otherwise expected. Very very ironic really. Give the money (or a sizeable fraction) to victims or spend the full time in prison?

Paul.