Display:
This is not a case of "acts which were thought to be insignificant".

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 05:11:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Absolutely. But it should be possible to prosecute her using existing laws, for which the fact that she used a computer is irrelevant.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 08:46:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
looking at that it's as if the computer misuse charges are extras on top of other traditional charges of harassment and abuse that deal with what she actually did.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But I think that's exactly the point of the writer Sassafras quoted: it sets up a dangerous precedent that could be used (without the additional charges) in other cases, and doesn't seem to serve any purpose in this case.
by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 09:01:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It looks as though the root of the problem is that there are no other criminal laws under which she can be prosecuted. According to wikipedia the computer misuse charges are the only ones being brought.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a rarely successful tort, and, even if successful, would result only in damages being payable.

Given the alleged facts of the case, it's easy to see why the prosecution is desperate to put her on trial, and, if found guilty, into jail, by any statute possible.

The concern is that the precedent could be used in a wider context.

by Sassafras on Tue May 20th, 2008 at 02:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series