view the rest of the comments
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
It's not prison, it's some sort of prison hospital. But still, life is the exact opposite end of the spectrum compared to a light sentence. Like you said, rehabilitation should be the goal, and imposing life sentences on 18 year olds is not how you make that happen.
He only got a life sentence because he made corporations look bad IMO. Not because of him saying he'd do it again.
I mean, he didn't even get a life sentence. That's in the headline, I know, but it's just not true.
He's in the hospital indefinitely, not sentenced to life. There's a big fat or clause that completely undermines the "life sentence".
I'm not really sure what anyone thinks WOULD be just and proper in this kind of situation. I don't know many details of this particular case, but if there has been due process that determines someone is unsafe to release into society because they lack social capacity, releasing them anyway hardly seems like justice.
I'd like to believe -- though I know it basically isn't true -- that the justice system exists for the sake of justice. That it is primarily concerned with making whole the victims and making sure the criminals are rehabilitated such that they can safely rejoin society and even contribute to it in the future. I think that's how the justice system should work in a fair and just world. But if you have someone who is actually incapable of rejoining society, what are you supposed to do?
If we want to focus on the awfulness of this situation, I don't think the sentence is the issue. I think the focus would need to be on whether or not the hospital treatment has any chance of being effective -- because if it doesn't, THAT'S the story that matters.
Who exactly was victimized here? Who was harmed and in what way? God the capitalist bootlicking is insane. Seriously arguing for taking away a neurodivergent person's agency because some game spoilers got released. Not a good look.
Right in the summary. He's not going to murder people. This is a huge over reach on the use of mental hospitals.
It's also right in the article that he was violent. That doesn't really matter though; what matters is whether he's competent to stand trial and whether it is reasonable to release him back to the regular justice system or general public.
I guess your point is that there's no safety hazard since his particular behavior isn't at least murder? Or maybe that cybercrime in particular is actually good and not a problem? It's not really a coherent framework to discuss these things either way.
Well yeah. A danger to the public generally refers to killing or maiming yourself or others. That's been the standard for a long time now.
And the judge said why they committed him. There's no need to go looking for more.
No no no, he's going to leak more GTA 6 if he gets out. That's super dangerous stuff that the public shouldn't see yet.
It’s not actually a life sentence, it’s a sentence until he is cured.
Cured of autism?
Autism isn't a free pass to do whatever you like without consequences. Most people manage to be autistic without cybercrime and violence, or telling the judge they intend to commit more crimes.
No, the desire/inability to not continue to commit crimes.
Nhs mental health services isn't going to do that.
No one gets "cured" of autism.
Not of autism damnit. His desire/inability not to continue to commit crimes.
Don’t try to twist me
I feel like just saying this is autism, is insulting to people with autism? The violent acts the article said he did can't just be attributed to autism.
Like the OP wants to compare this to law enforcement crimes where it's about what someone has done, whereas this is about medical hospitalization because of what someone is currently doing
Like he's an active, physical threat. The cybercrimes are very secondary to what is going on.
Yeah, I'm getting bothered by this too. My brother had a pretty bad case of autism, he suffered from hard-to-control anger issues, but he learned how to keep those outbursts from causing damage or harming the people around him.
Maybe this guy can learn to control himself, maybe he can't, autism is an extremely broad and varied condition. But either way, it's not unreasonable to keep him in a hospital until he's safe.
Are you autistic? Cause I am and nothing I said was or is insulting.
What is insulting is you somehow thinking you know anything about how difficult it is for people like us to live in a world where everyone tells us how we should live without first understanding who we are and how our brains work.
The so-called violence wasn't described in detail ... so it could mean they threw food at someone or banged a chair on the floor.
Cured of the desire to commit further crimes. Not cured of autism.
How exactly they'll determine that, I don't know.
Will probably wait until they're at least smart enough to lie about not wanting to commit more crimes. Maybe then they'll be mentally fit enough to stand trial, but I'm not sure.