SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I figured that this is a topic, while not dear to us, is relevant to this crowd -- well maybe not the public part. Italy's highest court has ruled that masturbation in public is not a crime, as long as it is not conducted in the presence of minors.
The man was convicted in May 2015 after he performed the act in front of students on the University of Catania campus, according to documents filed with Supreme Court. The man was sentenced to three months in prison and ordered to pay a fine of €3,200 (around $3,600).
However, the defendant's lawyer appealed the case to the country's highest court, which ruled on the side of the accused in June but only just made its decision public. Judges ruled that public masturbation out of the presence of minors is no longer deemed criminal conduct due to a change in the law last year, which decriminalized the act.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/08/europe/italy-supreme-court-masturbation/
(Score: 5, Informative) by RedBear on Sunday September 11 2016, @09:48AM
Decriminalization is not the same as full legality. Just as non-violent offenses involving controlled substances were "decriminalized" in Portugal, this becomes a civil matter, involving fines (and possibly some sort of medical/psychological intervention if deemed necessary) rather than prison time. I take this as another hopeful sign that the world is slowly, ever so slowly, beginning to realize that incarceration for non-violent offenses is idiotic, expensive, and frequently counter-productive.
And in other news, the power-mad DEA just announced that without any public engagement they're putting another plant (something called kratom) on the Schedule I list so they can start spending more taxpayer money violently targeting anyone who comes anywhere near it. All based on extremely flimsy unscientific "evidence" that it is somehow terribly dangerous to mankind. You know, like that other horrifically dangerous Schedule I substance they've been protecting us from for decades: marijuana. If you have a moment please add your name to the petition to stop this expansion of DEA insanity: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/please-do-not-make-kratom-schedule-i-substance [whitehouse.gov] . They've already passed 100K signatures, but more can't hurt anything.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Sunday September 11 2016, @12:41PM
I take this as another hopeful sign that the world is .. beginning to realize that incarceration for non-violent offenses is idiotic, expensive, and frequently counter-productive.
So what would you do with someone who steals/embezzles/blackmails for $10k (say) ?
Do you just get the crook to pay the money back? It was worth the crook trying - he might have got away with it.
Do you get the crook to pay the money back and then fine him an equal amount (say)? He does not have that sort of money (or has it in a Swiss bank acount), and even if he did it was still worth trying as the chances of getting caught are less than 50%.
Have a chat with him appealing to his better nature and leave him with a copy of the Bible with the Eighth Commandment picked out with a highlighter pen? No comment.
Any other ideas on a postcard please.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Justin Case on Sunday September 11 2016, @03:22PM
So what would you do with someone who steals/embezzles/blackmails
I prefer a system of mutual consent. Crime is crime because the victim did not consent. But the criminal did consent at the instant of choosing to engage in the act.
You commit a crime -- a real crime that actually harms someone else? They own your ass until you pay off the debt, which includes all costs of prosecution. It takes 10 years? Too fucking bad. You consented when you committed the crime.
Now perhaps your victim doesn't want to deal with owning an asshole. Well, since you can sell something you own, sell the criminal to a group who specializes in extracting value from losers.
Ohh, horrible! you say. Of course, criminals would know what to expect. Perhaps that would be a deterrence...
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Monday September 12 2016, @06:37PM
Good gracious. I was talking about one country where personal drug use was decriminalized and treated as a medical/civil fine issue, and another country where public masturbation was decriminalized and treated as a civil fine issue, and you want to compare this to grand larceny, where there is an actual external victim upon which tangible damage is inflicted? But, since you raised the issue, we have declared debtor's prisons unconstitutional quite some time ago for good reasons, and it costs taxpayers something like $200,000/yr to house prison inmates, so I fail to see how it is particularly useful to incarcerate a non-repeat, non-violent offender below a certain level of financial damage. Does it really make sense for society to spend $1,000,000 every time someone steals $10k? Even with incarceration, the perpetrator is almost universally also required to at least attempt to pay full restitution to the victim(s) of their crime, on top of civil and criminal fines, which they normally can't even begin to do in any meaningful way until they get out of prison and become gainfully employed back in society. Sooooo... not exactly sure what your point is, I mean besides the age-old refrain of "we gotta be tough on crime or there will be UTTER CHAOS". The idea that it is essential to have extremely draconian punishments for lesser crimes in order to keep major crimes from happening or to keep crime in general "under control" has been soundly disproven as ineffective and oftentimes damaging to society. Even the victims of crimes are now forming groups to fight harsh sentencing laws and mass incarceration policies. Most of this of course is related to the total disaster that is the War on Drugs.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11 2016, @02:57PM
I guess this is better than throwing people in prison/jail, but there really should be no punishment at all. Seeing someone masturbating doesn't cause anyone any tangible harm, and no, getting offended isn't tangible harm.