Pizza Man是2011年的一齣電影，講一個在母親開的薄餅店做工的學生，在實驗室被槍殺，教授給他番茄，使他得到神奇力量。現實的另一個pizza man卻為了強取一群小孩一塊薄餅來吃而判監25年。不是發生在雨果(Hugo)寫悲慘世界(Les Miserables)的年代，雨果筆下的主人翁Jean Valjean 1815年出獄，坐了19年監，為的是救家人免於餓死，打破麵包店的窗櫥偷了一條麵包，因此判監5年，另外14年是因逃獄而加刑的。
標題講的25年監卻發生在1994年美國加州，當時美國治安差，治亂世用重典，施行三振法(three strikes law)，對第三次犯嚴重控罪(felony)的人處以最少25年監禁，但罪名嚴重案情輕微也不放過，新聞中(連結)這案底累累的黑人就為一塊pizza被判監25年，連獄中的囚犯都以為他是殺了送pizza的人才會得到這刑罰。
標榜民主民權的美國，卻用這種判刑原則，我真無知，真的不懂，雖往矣，猶有餘悸。美國人口是全球百分之五，囚犯卻佔百分之二十五，五個人就有一個有刑事案底。崇尚民主自由，又極度嚮往其價值，美首是瞻的人，不要只顧罵共產黨，大陸當然扺罵，美國佬違反人權的時候就不要置若罔聞。
標題講的25年監卻發生在1994年美國加州，當時美國治安差，治亂世用重典，施行三振法(three strikes law)，對第三次犯嚴重控罪(felony)的人處以最少25年監禁，但罪名嚴重案情輕微也不放過，新聞中(連結)這案底累累的黑人就為一塊pizza被判監25年，連獄中的囚犯都以為他是殺了送pizza的人才會得到這刑罰。
標榜民主民權的美國，卻用這種判刑原則，我真無知，真的不懂，雖往矣，猶有餘悸。美國人口是全球百分之五，囚犯卻佔百分之二十五，五個人就有一個有刑事案底。崇尚民主自由，又極度嚮往其價值，美首是瞻的人，不要只顧罵共產黨，大陸當然扺罵，美國佬違反人權的時候就不要置若罔聞。
Do you think the three strikes law would have applied if the one committed the same minor offence was a white man/white woman?
回覆刪除I suppose everyone is equal before the law. I am unfamiliar with the US implementation. I am not surprised if there is discrimination. There were too many instances.
回覆刪除美國佬違反人權: Look at Iraq... but the crimes were conveniently overlooked by most.
回覆刪除入侵伊拉克違反國際法添，根本出師無名。
刪除Previously, the California version of the three-strike law counted the number of convicted offenses, not the acts. The third strike penalty was applied even if he/she was convicted three felonies for only one act. DA, at that time, had to dismiss part of the offenses to avoid this disproportional penalty.
回覆刪除In that case either they misinterpreted the law or they had not done enough to avoid aberrant results. Enhancement of sentence like this is too difficult to accept. Draconian is not enough to describe.
刪除http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaSDxUWdZVQ
回覆刪除how you think about this?
charge her? 偷奶? 還把人奶擠進牛奶盒裡「加料」?
want to know the law different in HK or ...
Weird. You don't know if she is the owner of the carton of milk. Without background information, I will not contemplate any charge.
回覆刪除base on newspaper
回覆刪除background information: she is one of staff in X co.
another staff is the owner of the carton of milk
This woman is filmed taking out a milk carton from an office fridge
maybe, she is afraid her colleague found it, and filling it with her own breast milk.
Sorry, I don't believe the story. The milk carton is not transparent, how can one tells milk is stolen given the amount is not noticeable. I say this because looking at the body shape of the woman, it does not seem that she has given birth before. Secondly, her squeeze won't produce much milk to cover up. The CCTV is only a practical joke. If it is a genuine case, I won't press charge for her stupidity. If charge is a must, then a simple charge of Theft.
刪除it is hardly to believe, but 世事無奇不有...
回覆刪除http://www.appledaily.com.tw/realtimenews/article/new/20140507/393072/
ha ha ... only theft??
What else do you suggest? Do you think the woman would pull up her dress just to let some drops of milk, if any, back into the carton and did not notice there was a close circuit camera there. She did not even pour out a whole glass. It looked like that she just poured less than 50 ml. Don't be fooled by the joke.
刪除http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/expressnews/20140526/news_20140526_55_1009048.htm
回覆刪除看到這些理由真的不禁失笑. 不知標少有沒有聽過更離譜的借口呢? 另外可以"教育"下一眾有資格做陪審員的高學歷人士, 哪些理由法官會接受, 哪些只會被炳到反肚呢?
確離譜。我邊識教人，識都唔講喇。
刪除I can see the risk of our becoming the slaves of the law at two levels: when the law enacted is not the right one and when the judges do not interpret the law properly
回覆刪除What you have said is too vague.
回覆刪除