What is the use of a deterrent if people are not made aware of it?

How do people find out what is acceptable - how the rules are interpreted - if crimes and punishments are not publicised?

A friend of mine fell seriously foul of the law, in perpetrating what might be called a 'victimless crime' as they were unaware of the powers of detection that were available to the state. SO, in carrying out other perfectly legitimate business, the crime was revealed and the taxpayer required to fund an extended period of loss of of liberty; not a good deal for the tax payer, nor for the friend, and nor for any of those around - all because the likelihood of the crime being discovered was not adequately publicised. A deterrent is only effecfive if it is publicised, and the purpose of criminal punishment is solely as a deterrent.

Similarly, whenever a player is red-carded in every code of football, the reason for the punishment is explained, and the player sent from the field in full public view.

There is a record of how, when, why and who was punished, and the rest of us can get on with the game, knowing that sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.

If a crime is committed, or a breach of the rules, then it should be made known the reason for the punishment, and all those who may be tempted to repeat the crime should be made aware, as a deterrent, not just the recipients of the punishment.

Can I request that the mods consider this fairly abstract assessment of the value of deterrence. THis sort of discussion deserves some General audience, before it is relegated to a more technical forum for detailed debate (or more likely, suppression)

SC

I'll probably be taking a holiday after this...

Did I understand the intent of your post?

TO WIT: An illegal act should not be considered illegal if the the fact that it is illegal (and maybe the punishment for such act) is not widely publicized?

To keep this active, we must assume that it is about someone caught out by the Thai authorities for an illegal act vice someone in another country.

I think ignorance of the law is no excuse is a world wide concept. So one answer might be that any prudent business man had better know 100% of the laws that affect the conduct of his business before he opens the doors.

But then your wording says he knew it was against the law but didn't think anyone would find out, he was "unaware of the powers of detection that were available to the state".

If that is true, then this goes out of the realm of a theoretical discussion and falls into the 'PAYS YOUR MONEY AND TAKES YOUR CHANCES" category. Sounds like he gambled and lost. And now he is finding out that the penalty for committing a known criminal act is greater than he anticipated?

Did I understand the intent of your post?

TO WIT: An illegal act should not be considered illegal if the the fact that it is illegal (and maybe the punishment for such act) is not widely publicized?

To keep this active, we must assume that it is about someone caught out by the Thai authorities for an illegal act vice someone in another country.

I think ignorance of the law is no excuse is a world wide concept. So one answer might be that any prudent business man had better know 100% of the laws that affect the conduct of his business before he opens the doors.

But then your wording says he knew it was against the law but didn't think anyone would find out, he was "unaware of the powers of detection that were available to the state".

If that is true, then this goes out of the realm of a theoretical discussion and falls into the 'PAYS YOUR MONEY AND TAKES YOUR CHANCES" category. Sounds like he gambled and lost. And now he is finding out that the penalty for committing a known criminal act is greater than he anticipated?

No. What I am saying is that people should be made aware of the punishments that they may be exposed to, including the likelihood of such punishment, in order that the punishment is effective in deterring the crime, since the purpose of the punishment is to deter people from committing crimes - to encourage people to be law-abiding citizens rather than criminals. An unpublished punishment is ineffective in discouraging crime, since the specific act for which the punishment was given has already been committed.

Similarly, if the purpose of censorship is to prevent the publication of illegal statements (whether they be defamatory or foul of some othe rule or regulation) then the fact that such censorship has taken place should be made public, so that others will understand that it is not acceptable to make such statements,

On the other hand, if the purpose of censorship is to suppress dissent and mold the thinking of the public, then such publication would be counter-productive. Only the thought-police know what their own objective is, and I choose to believe that the evidence we do not see before us is due to lack of intelligent debate and informed decision making, rather than a desire to direct people's opinon.

I can see me getting a smack on the head from the boom, sailing this close to the wind....

SC

I accept that we expose ourselves to the full punishment of the law when we run foul of it, through either innocent misadventure or villanous intent; and the fact that the innocent tend to suffer more severely than the villanous is unfortunate but the alternatives are in my view unpalatable. I am not seeking or proposing clemency - I am saying that the prevalance of crime - particularly the accidental misadventure by basically law-abiding and easily cowed members of the flock - would be reduced if they were made aware of the potential consequences that could befall them, and the precise limits of what was considered acceptable and not.

^people ARE made aware of punishments for committing a crime, it's written in the statutes.

So next time you want to commit a crime just look up the relevant law and it will tell you the likely consequences of getting caught.

If your ppoint is that you want to be told the likelihood you will be caught then that's easy as well, it's 0% if you don't commit the crime.

Thank you for moving this thread but retaining it.

I was particularly criticising the deletion without record of the "What does LOS mean to you"; when I posted to that thread, some previous posts were verging on the "excessively negative viewpoint" margin, and I can well imagine that later in the evening it may have gone downhill as people came home from their relationship break-ups and inflated bar bills and so forth.

But without a record of that deletion, there is nothing to remind the innocent and easily cowed to stay on the straight and narrow. If the prisoners don't see their fellows being shot, they may believe that some escape... deterrence without publication is no deterrent.

SC

People with civility and good manners don't need to see the fallen bodies of their comrades on pointed stakes posted around the forum. If this is going to be a veiled attempt at criticizing moderation then I suggest you rethink.

People with civility and good manners don't need to see the fallen bodies of their comrades on pointed stakes posted around the forum. If this is going to be a veiled attempt at criticizing moderation then I suggest you rethink.

Some of us struggle to keep our civility and good manners in check (I'm not sure that came out the way it was supposed to). I think that there is a difference between constructive and helpful suggestions, and criticism. Criticism would be to mply that things that had been done in the past had been done in one way or another, which I am sure is not the case, whereas helpful suggestions relate to hypothetical future activities in a general sort of way.

SC

I should buy a boat, shouldn't I?

the crime was revealed and the taxpayer required to fund an extended period of loss of of liberty

You mean to say he broke the law, got busted and was thrown in jail? Shit happens.

Sorry, I realise this is thread is just taking exception at people being secretly suspended or something like that.

as they were unaware of the powers of detection that were available to the state

So you are complaining that he didn't get away with it when he thought he would?

the crime was revealed and the taxpayer required to fund an extended period of loss of of liberty

Sorry, I realise this is thread is just taking exception at people being secretly suspended or something like that.

I don't think it is though, at least I don't think it started that way.

This thread is seriously confusing.

the crime was revealed and the taxpayer required to fund an extended period of loss of of liberty

You mean to say he broke the law, got busted and was thrown in jail? Shit happens.

Sorry, I realise this is thread is just taking exception at people being secretly suspended or something like that.

As an hypothetical example - if GPS data could be used for prosecution purposes, then many people who own such systems might suddenly find themselves liable to many many many speeding tickets dating back years. Had people known that, they may have driven differently...

The purpose of punishment is deterrence, not to satisfy the vindictive spite of the self-righteous (I think that is the current liberal democratic consensus, anyway) and as Peter Sellers pointed out, a secret deterrent is no deterrent at all.

SC

In the Penal Colony, Kafka

I was particularly criticising the deletion without record of the "What does LOS mean to you"; when I posted to that thread, some

I think that there is a difference between constructive and helpful suggestions, and criticism. Criticism would be to mply that things that had been done in the past had been done in one way or another, which I am sure is not the case, whereas helpful suggestions relate to hypothetical future activities in a general sort of way.

funny, when I read the word criticising, somehow I assumed you meant you are giving criticism.

As an hypothetical example - if GPS data could be used for prosecution purposes, then many people who own such systems might suddenly find themselves liable to many many many speeding tickets dating back years. Had people known that, they may have driven differently...

The purpose of punishment is deterrence, not to satisfy the vindictive spite of the self-righteous (I think that is the current liberal democratic consensus, anyway) and as Peter Sellers pointed out, a secret deterrent is no deterrent at all.

SC

I believe, if I am reading between the lines correctly, SC or a friend had an alternative nick and has been found out. There is an ingenious device, Heaven knows how they work, that can track your IP, SC or his compadre did not know this and used the same computer and got nicked, if you excuse the pun.

The defence in this case, is ignorance of the detection process, not the crime, because I am sure Forum rules state only one name per person, however I can't be arsed to check.

Unfortunately, ignorance is no defence, am I somewhere near guessing your dilemma SC?

Signed

London Crocodile

By the way, I haven't given any secrets away, a lot of forums use the software

As an hypothetical example - if GPS data could be used for prosecution purposes, then many people who own such systems might suddenly find themselves liable to many many many speeding tickets dating back years. Had people known that, they may have driven differently...

The purpose of punishment is deterrence, not to satisfy the vindictive spite of the self-righteous (I think that is the current liberal democratic consensus, anyway) and as Peter Sellers pointed out, a secret deterrent is no deterrent at all.

SC

I believe, if I am reading between the lines correctly, SC or a friend had an alternative nick and has been found out. There is an ingenious device, Heaven knows how they work, that can track your IP, SC or his compadre did not know this and used the same computer and got nicked, if you excuse the pun.

The defence in this case, is ignorance of the detection process, not the crime, because I am sure Forum rules state only one name per person, however I can't be arsed to check.

Unfortunately, ignorance is no defence, am I somewhere near guessing your dilemma SC?

Signed

London Crocodile

By the way, I haven't given any secrets away, a lot of forums use the software

No, the example was purely illustrative and not related to the original cause of disgruntlement, which was related to the relatively innocent posts which were deleted along with the offensive bulk of the thread. The example was actually more related to the sudden change in policy in applying the law regarding over-staying, which could potentially be a source of tears for the innocent, naive and poorly advised, and not an effective deterrent to mistakes made in the past - hence the constructive suggestions of applying a moratorium, or announcing such a change in advance of its implementation.

I think the data packets that send web-based communication include a source address and a destination address, and some checking information, so that if, anywhere along the route, the checking information indicates that the data has been damaged, a request to re-send can be sent back to the originating address. That is just my surmisal - like you, I am not involved in that field, so can only guess.

SC

I was particularly criticising the deletion without record of the "What does LOS mean to you"; when I posted to that thread, some

I think that there is a difference between constructive and helpful suggestions, and criticism. Criticism would be to mply that things that had been done in the past had been done in one way or another, which I am sure is not the case, whereas helpful suggestions relate to hypothetical future activities in a general sort of way.

funny, when I read the word criticising, somehow I assumed you meant you are giving criticism.

Yes, after I'd made the post and re-read back through the thread, I realised I didn't really have a leg to stand on, but I thought I'd keep quiet and see if anyone noticed. I suppose its a bit like when your sails go slack, but you're able to quickly work the tiller to get some air back on the right side. Changing analogy, I suppose I should roll the wicket a bit by admitting to poor wording in the earlier post, and perhaps "posting with reference to" would have been a better turn of phrase than "criticising"; though I suppose there's little point in rolling the wicket after the over's bowled - that's weaseling rather than ferreting... I feel on safer ground with field sports...

SC

In the Penal Colony, Kafka

Sorry, Mark, can you expand a little?

Is this a bit of - geneology - for Dr Strangelove?

I suspect I'll need to go to a full-price bookshop to pick up a copy...

SC

In the Penal Colony, Kafka

Sorry, Mark, can you expand a little?

Is this a bit of - geneology - for Dr Strangelove?

I suspect I'll need to go to a full-price bookshop to pick up a copy...

SC

It is a short story. You can read it in less than an hour. You can find it on line. It is really on topic. Great story BTW.

Franz Kafka (3 July 1883 – 3 June 1924) was a German-language novelist, one of the most influential of the 20th century, whose works came to be regarded after his death as one of the major achievements of world literature. The term "Kafkaesque" has entered the English language.

I was particularly criticising the deletion without record of the "What does LOS mean to you"; when I posted to that thread, some

I think that there is a difference between constructive and helpful suggestions, and criticism. Criticism would be to mply that things that had been done in the past had been done in one way or another, which I am sure is not the case, whereas helpful suggestions relate to hypothetical future activities in a general sort of way.

funny, when I read the word criticising, somehow I assumed you meant you are giving criticism.

Yes, after I'd made the post and re-read back through the thread, I realised I didn't really have a leg to stand on, but I thought I'd keep quiet and see if anyone noticed. I suppose its a bit like when your sails go slack, but you're able to quickly work the tiller to get some air back on the right side. Changing analogy, I suppose I should roll the wicket a bit by admitting to poor wording in the earlier post, and perhaps "posting with reference to" would have been a better turn of phrase than "criticising"; though I suppose there's little point in rolling the wicket after the over's bowled - that's weaseling rather than ferreting... I feel on safer ground with field sports...

SC

Good answer coz it made zero sense to me. And SC, I notice everything