Chav does Britain proud

[evilsoup]

spacemarine#, you know it's possible for someone to just be a racist without being a full-blown nazi/blackshirt? There are differences between an old lady who holds her handbag closer to her when she sees a black guy coming the other way, and this kind of drunken ranting, and actual blackshirt practices like shoving bags of burning dogshit through people's letterboxes. Obviously all of those are bad things, but come on they're not all on the same level.

Also, despite my usage of the term minorities here, if you'd attack men, white people or heterosexuals in such a way you'd be charged with the same (sexist, racist, sexuality-ist) offenses.

I suspect you'd have to go a bit further with insulting the majority to get arrested for hate crimes. But that's less down to the law being different for minorities (it isn't), than people would be less likely to complain as they would feel less threatened by it.

I thought Lady Justice was supposed to be blindfolded after all.

Fun fact: the statue of Justice at the Old Bailey actually isn't blindfolded.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I thought Lady Justice was supposed to be blindfolded after all.

Fun fact: the statue of Justice at the Old Bailey actually isn't blindfolded.

Really? Damn.

[Serafina]

Let me see if I have this down now:

In an ideal justice system and world where all groups are treated equally, there wouldn't be a distinction; but as we don't have a perfect system or world and all groups are not treated equally, we put more weight on crimes against minority groups to try and balance the system.

Is that right?

Well - duh!
Or slightly more elaborate:
If there were no crimes motivated by racism/sexism/etc., we wouldn't punish crimes motivated by racism/sexism/etc. more severely

Let me repeat myself:
Only crimes committed due to racism/sexism/etc. are punished more severely. If you happen to commit a crime to someone of another race/gender/whatever and don't give a shit about that persons race/gender/whatever, then you won't be punished any more severely than if you had committed the same crime against a person of your own race/gender/whatever.
So:
Person A beats up Person B BECAUSE B belongs to minority group C. Person A gets charged with racially/etc. motivated crime.
Person A beats up Person B who HAPPENS to belong to minority group C. Person A gets charged with normal crime committed.

[Eternal_Freedom]

quote="Serafina"]Let me repeat myself:
Only crimes committed due to racism/sexism/etc. are punished more severely. If you happen to commit a crime to someone of another race/gender/whatever and don't give a shit about that persons race/gender/whatever, then you won't be punished any more severely than if you had committed the same crime against a person of your own race/gender/whatever.[/quote]

The problem I see there is convincing the authorities that racism etc was not involved, but that's incidental to the meat of what you said.

[Serafina]

Well yes, people might get wrongly charged with racially/etc. motivated crime. Errors happen. That fact doesn't mean that a law should not exist (unless it is a law that leads to a very large amount of false convictions, which i doubt here).

[evilsoup]

Only crimes committed due to racism/sexism/etc. are punished more severely.

Hm. I sympathise with the reasoning behind that, but I thought the general consensus of studies was that deterrence through punishment doesn't work.

You can still make a good argument for these hate-crime laws without resorting to deterrence: they make members of minorities feel that the state is on their side, which encourages integration instead of isolation.

[Serafina]

Hm. I sympathise with the reasoning behind that, but I thought the general consensus of studies was that deterrence through punishment doesn't work.

Deterrent through punishment certainly DOES work, just not to any arbitrary degree. Otherwise,there would be no difference between a state with a rule of law and one without. It's just that, after a while a more severe punishment won't do you any good.

More specifically, the deterrent-factor of punishment is twofold: The direct damage incurred by the punishment, and the social stigma accompanied by it.
The former isn't very specific - 15 years in prison aren't that much more frightening than 10 years in prison, but spending time in prison is certainly more frightening than paying a fine or community service. The Death penalty isn't really more deterring than lifelong prison, since that's already a worst-case scenario you can't exceed.
Humans are MUCH more sensitive to the latter (since that's what our original small societies were based around). As you said (and i already made that point as well), charging someone with "racially motivated crime" carries a larger social stigma*

Lawmakers can certainly influence our behavior with both effects.
The introduction of fines for not wearing seatbelts is primarily an example of the first effect - people didn't look any worse upon you if you did it than before, but people stopped doing it because they wanted to avoid the direct consequence (the fine).
Laws against spanking are arguably an example of the latter effect - the odds of getting caught are relatively low, but people started to see spanking in a bad light, so people stopped doing it lest they would be shunned by their social circles.

*Well, it depends. The effect is greater in the case of minor offenses - if we're talking about murder or somesuch, most people will already shun you so much that not much more will happen. Also, if you happen to be deeply ingrained in a racist peer group, it might actually carry less weight - a conviction due to racially motivated assault would be seen as a minor excess or even as a badge of honor, while a conviction due to assault might make people careful around you. Turns out life is complicated, who knew.

[SpaceMarine93]

The deterrence in the legal system of today is less about the punishment they will dish out for certain offenses, or the threat of it, but more about the certainty of punishment. If you break the law, the cops WILL catch you and bring you to justice. That's what deters crime.

At least, that's what my brother told me about how the deterrence works. He studies law in Warwick.

[K. A. Pital]

At least, that's what my brother told me about how the deterrence works. He studies law in Warwick.

Certainity of punishment is indeed a greater deterring power than severity. At least that's what I found from the auxiliary law courses we took in university.

[Simon_Jester]

The deterrence in the legal system of today is less about the punishment they will dish out for certain offenses, or the threat of it, but more about the certainty of punishment. If you break the law, the cops WILL catch you and bring you to justice. That's what deters crime.

At least, that's what my brother told me about how the deterrence works. He studies law in Warwick.

You're brother's probably right, but the theory has its flaws- not all criminals get caught.

So I think you misunderstood the correct thing your brother told you. Certainty of punishment does make the law a deterrent against crime, when punishment is actually certain. If punishment is uncertain, crimes are not deterred, and crime rates will go up even if the punishment for crime is very harsh.

We can see this in, say, Georgian Britain. Punishment for stealing anything with a price tag over a shilling was death... with the result that thieves would steal as much as they could, reasoning that they'd rather hang for stealing a flock of sheep than for a single lamb. Highwaymen would kill people who witnessed their robberies, because leaving a witness alive made them more likely to be caught and executed, while killing a witness didn't add anything meaningful to their punishment (death either way).

Theft did not stop happening, crime was not deterred.

[Crown]

PS the video isn't safe for work because of the swearing. But otherwise hilarity ensures as she doesn't realise Nigaragua is a country in South America and not Africa.

What's actually funny is that you think a Chav was actually trying to say Nicaragua and not Nigger + agua / stan / land!

I thought the term "chav" was reserved for young folk; the hoodie-wearing under-20 kids. Does an age of 34 qualify?

(yes, yes, I know "chav" is probably just a state of mind, just curious here...)

Who do you think is 'raising' (lol at that irony) the current/next generation of Chavs?

[Crown]

I will say this though, while this woman was obviously a chav, not all chavs are inherently racist.

[mr friendly guy]

Update. The Chav has now been dealt with.
linky

London woman jailed for YouTube race rant Save this story to read laterFrom: AAP
May 30, 2012 8:25AM
Drunken rant on London train lands woman in jail
Jacqueline Woodhouse sentenced to 21 weeks
Verbal assault caught on camera, shown to court


A DRUNK passenger who hurled racist abuse at fellow travellers on a London underground train in a tirade that became an internet sensation has been jailed for 21 weeks.
Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42, launched an expletive-laden rant at passengers on the Central line, telling those seated near her: "I used to live in England and now I live in the United Nations."

A seven-minute video of the verbal assault was uploaded to YouTube and viewed more than 200,000 times.

See her rant in the video above

Condemning her showdown, District Judge Michael Snow at Westminster Magistrates' Court in central London, said: "Anyone viewing it would feel a deep sense of shame that our citizens could be subject to such behaviour who may, as a consequence, believe that it secretly represents the views of other white people."

Woodhouse was fined following a similar offence in 2008.

In the video of her latest foul-mouthed outburst, filmed by businessman Galbant Juttla, Woodhouse can be heard shouting in a thick Essex accent: "All f***ing foreign f***ing s***heads."

The former secretary, of Romford, Essex, turns to other passengers and asks: "Where do you come from? Where do you come from? Where do you come from?

Watch the video above


Prosecutor Claire Campbell said Woodhouse, who has since lost her job and is now claiming benefits, began her stream of abuse after a retirement party when she was feeling a little "worse for wear". She had drunk an unknown quantity of champagne.

Woodhouse sat with her head bowed as CCTV footage of the prolonged rant between St Paul's and Mile End stations was played to the court.

Problem with this thing is, while I don't really have much sympathy for someone like this losing their job (who would want to employ a racist anyway?), they just end up on welfare benefits.

[Akhlut]

Problem with this thing is, while I don't really have much sympathy for someone like this losing their job (who would want to employ a racist anyway?), they just end up on welfare benefits.

So, you want her living on the streets? Do you want her to be turning tricks, or imprisoned for the rest of her life? Do you want her just to be taken out behind the court and bludgeoned to death? I mean, yeah, she's a complete imbecile and an ass, but throwing her on the street and letting her root through trash cans for her daily bread isn't really justice for saying racist shit on a subway, in my view.

[mr friendly guy]

So, you want her living on the streets?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from my post.

Do you want her to be turning tricks, or imprisoned for the rest of her life?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from my post. Although I must say with your "turning tricks idea", if there is a carnival game where we knock a bullseye and let the racist drop into the water, that would be a nice trick. On the plus side its also honest employment and the government doesn't have to pay as much welfare. That was sarcasm by the way, just in case you missed it.

Do you want her just to be taken out behind the court and bludgeoned to death?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from my post.

I mean, yeah, she's a complete imbecile and an ass, but throwing her on the street and letting her root through trash cans for her daily bread isn't really justice for saying racist shit on a subway, in my view.

What I am saying is that its a catch 22. Some employers understandably won't hire a racist, especially one which is going to attract bad publicity. In which my case my sympathy is more suited for the employer who suddenly finds that he/she has this racist as an employee. However if the employer decides not to renew her contract, that just leaves society with the problem of paying welfare to the Chav.

Now of course she could have lost the job for a totally different reason than because of bad publicity, and then the above obviously doesn't apply.

[Mr Bean]

So, you want her living on the streets?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from my post.

It's simple you said this

Problem with this thing is, while I don't really have much sympathy for someone like this losing their job (who would want to employ a racist anyway?), they just end up on welfare benefits.

Now unless you know about some sort of Racism Fairy that comes and gives all the good little racists presents in the form of currency once a week by default the only thing that can happen to a outed Racist who's lost there job is to go onto welfare. Your statement implied you wished she would either A not lose her job, or B not collect welfare.

Unless you want her to simply lay down and die on the street she really has only one option if her racist history gets so public, either she's going to work at a company which will have to appear to support her racists beliefs by simply employing her or she's going to have to go to an actual race based company of some sort. Or... something, the present circumstance can not continue. Being unemployed she must do something to pay her rent and put food on her table.

[mr friendly guy]

Now unless you know about some sort of Racism Fairy that comes and gives all the good little racists presents in the form of currency once a week by default the only thing that can happen to a outed Racist who's lost there job is to go onto welfare. Your statement implied you wished she would either A not lose her job, or B not collect welfare.

Unless you want her to simply lay down and die on the street she really has only one option if her racist history gets so public, either she's going to work at a company which will have to appear to support her racists beliefs by simply employing her or she's going to have to go to an actual race based company of some sort. Or... something, the present circumstance can not continue. Being unemployed she must do something to pay her rent and put food on her table.

Oh? Look at the history of people post "I have no sympathy for <insert person>" on this very board.

People have posted "I have no sympathy <for insert Australian drug mule executed in SE Asia / caught with illicit drugs in SE Asia>" even though people in the same breath oppose the use of the death penalty for drug smuggling.

People have laughed at Darwin Award nominees, but that doesn't mean we want to go and kill such idiots ourselves.

So in that vein I don't wish to personally go to force her out a job, but if she does lose it because of the bad publicity, really its her own fault. I was also pointing out, that if this happens, we (society) ends up in the unenviable position of having to pay welfare to her.

[mr friendly guy]

I must admit I may have made a mistake with the update. It appears the name of the person is different from both articles, (actually my original article didn't mention a name, so I didn't think much of it when the follow up article gave her name as Jacqueline Woodhouse). However a few posts down SpaceMarine93 posted an article from the Huffington post which named the person (which I didn't read the second time when I posted my follow up article).

My memory of the woman in question must be faulty because the linked article provided a youtube video which looked very similar to the the same image as the earlier youtube article, and given the similar stories and the fact my original article didn't give a name, I didn't think much of it. So my "update" should belong to a separate thread really due to an error on my part.

[Pendleton]

If she was really quite inebriated, it brings to my mind echoes of the Mel Gibson anti-semitism rant, despite him being good friends with Jews in real life. There's a chapter on this in the neurology book Incognito which asks who the real "you" is in this scenarios. I have known people who would be totally unrecognisable to themselves if they saw how they acted while drunk.

[Serafina]

In the end, i'd much rather have her (potential) job go to a decent person (who then doesn't need welfare) then to a racist.