I came up with this idea not to long ago but here is the basis of it. I will post a story probably every day and let people here debate if that person should be innocent or guilty. The story could be real or fake but I won't tell you. If you have a story that you want debated, comment my profile so I can find it easier. This thread is just to get people thinking about justice. All stories will be posted in this thread. If you need help finding it, just ask what page it is on. Here is the first story...
A man was walking on a woman's porch holding a knife. He has not entered the home. She notices him and looks out the window. He holds the knife out and laughs. The woman becomes scared and releases her pit bull outside. She calls the police and they arrive 10 minutes later. However, before they arrive, the dog attacks the man and he receives serious wounds. Now we are in the court room. The man says he thought he was at his friend's home. He says that his friend left the knife at his house and was returning it. The man meant no harm to the woman and demands that she pay his medical bills for the dog bites. So, we have a woman who believes it was self defense to let the dog go. She thought he would hurt her and trespassing so she thinks he should be put in jail. She also says she does not have to pay the medical bills. He believes the dog should be put down and the woman pay his medical bills. Who is right and who is wrong? You be the judge.
Remember, you are debating what you think should be done to the man and woman. There really is no right and wrong answer. It is how you feel justice should be carried out.
Okay, most of you were more detailed with your reply which was right. When there is a case like this, you have to say exactly who is being fined. Anyways, the verdict...
The two men who wanted the sauna were fined $90,000. This was only about 15-25% of the total damages. The two engineers were not fined at all.
Most of you were right about the two men being fined but probably were not thinking it would be that low of a percent of damages. Anyways, next story...
We have been doing some cases where you have been the judge. I figured I would kind of switch it up. Now we are at an elementary school and there is a case that involves two 9-year-olds. A boy was chasing a girl around and when he finally caught up to her, he gave her a kiss on the cheek. The boy's parents say it was an innocent kiss and should not be punished at all. The girl's parents said it should not be taken as sexual harassment but their daughter did feel unsafe and afraid. They think there should be a strong punishment. Was this just an innocent kiss or should that boy be punished? You be the principal!
Well he might have being playing Kiss Chace but the girl might have lied to her parents and why should he punished for kissing a girl he did mean no harm in the kiss maybe he fancied her or something,so he should not be punished in my opinion!
There shouldn't be a big punishment involved, this kind of stuff happens all the time. It was just an affectionate kiss on the cheek from another 9 year old, not even close to sexual harrasment.
In this day and age, an unsolicited kiss on the cheek during adulthood can go a long way.
However, this does not warrant a severe punishment as that would also send a message inconsistent with societal guidelines. It should be explained to the kid that he can no longer do this- if he does it again then evidently there would be grounds for more severe action.
The other issue is that the girl apparently feels "unsafe and afraid" although in my cynical opinion I believe this is half genuine concern and half spitefulness- she or her parents may be 'milking it' (I'm not favorable of the vindictive way most people treat jurisprudence). Either way an open line for communication should be open for the boy to apologise for his unsolicited action and explain that he did not mean anything by it, and for the girl to accept this apology on the grounds that it does not happen again. This I believe would yield the greatest chance that a constructive lesson comes from it.
Punishment on the other hand would only give a distorted view akin to the prevalent ethos of "if you don't like it, sue!" and "I can complain until I get anything I want"- a feature frequently exploited by kids.
It sure is common these days with charges over idiot offences. In my belief the judiciary system has gone too hard on small things, and too soft on big things, depending on which angle you see them. As for this story the boy should probably apologise and nothing else. I'm not sure a nine-year old boy can be sentenced but a short apology wouldn't do any harm. I doubt the nine-year-old was performing sexual assault, that's just crazy, can you imagine that in a headline? Well, maybe these dayd it could be plausable. Nine-year-old child sexually assaults girl...maybe not.
