Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/12/04 12:18 pm:
Excon,

>>>It's no surprise to me that they punish him anyway. He is no more a flight risk now than he ever was. That risk assessment is based upon a persons history of being where he was supposed to be, when he was supposed to be there - not the size of his bank account.<<<

As you well know, light risk is assesed on several diferent criterion. These include family or a residence outside the country, attachements to local family or the community that might preclude him from running, and ABILITY to run.

If a criminal on parole suddenly gets $13 million that he didn't have before, you don't think that the flight risk asessment changes? You don't think that he can suddenly afford to run when he might not have been able to do so before? Don't be rediculous, Excon. Of course the situation and the risks changed as soon as this guy became a multi-millionaire.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/12/04 12:22 pm:
Sancho,

>>>Actually in the British Armed Services if you were to win a substaintial amount of money you would likely to be discharge as "services no loner required" The military heirarchy wouldn't want to deal with some junior ranking millionaire.)<<<

We have a similar thing here, only its with medals, not money. If you get 3 purple hearts, they send you home. There are even some people who go "medal hunting" to get out of military service early. And there are a few who lie about their actions in order to get medals they don't really deserve...

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/13/04 3:38 pm:
Sancho,

Was this a government run lottery or some sort of private organization's lottery? I am assuming that a prize that big was NOT give by a private organization.

I'm thinking that instead of changing the law with regards to prisoners, it might make more sense to change the law with regards to the lottery.

Instead of saying "prisoners may not buy lottery tickets", it may make more sense to say "This lottery is only open to elligible people, and criminals currently serving prison or probationary sentences are not eligible". By changing the law regarding criminals, your lawmakers might be fighting an uphill battle, depending on how strong your civil liberties organizations are. But your leaders are already within their authority to change the rules of the game they are officially in charge of. If your Home Secretary wants to change the rules of the lottery, he may do so without a political battle, because he is officially in charge of the lottery (or at least the people who work for him are). It might be a better solution that a fight to change the law regarding the prisoners themselves. It closes the loophole, no muss, no fuss.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 08/13/04 10:36 pm:
It's a government lottery, run by a private company.

Prisoners are already banned from playing privately run football pools and civil liberties are pretty sketchy. A prison Governor can ban whatever outside commodities that come into his prison, some do not even allow magazines to be mailed to the inmates.

Britain doesn't have a constitution, it is ruled by "common law" and precedence, technically you can't get any freer because if something appears not to be fair then there is no constitution preventing a judge to allow or disallow it.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 08/17/04 12:27 pm:
There's also nothing to guarantee that your rights won't be cut short by a bad ruling that suddenly becomes the new precedent. If a judge ever determined that Kosher slaughter of animals was considered inhumane (its not, but that's not the point), Kosher slaghter would suddenly become illegal in England, and your Jewish population would suffer because of it... a clear abrogation of their religious rights. In the USA that could never happen because our religious rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.

And please don't tell me that it could never happen, because there are several European countries where it HAS happened, and the Jewish populations of those countries have to import their meat at exorbitant prices. I believe that belgium is one, and Switzerland is another. I think that in-roads to making Kosher slaughter illegal in France have been made as well, though it has not yet become law.

I'll take a Constitution any day of the week. Even with its flaws, I think it is a better guarantor of my rights than a Common Law system.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by SanchoPanza on 08/17/04 5:18 pm:
Your constitution had a number of amendments so there is no guarantee of retaining any rights at all.

Common law is entirely paternalistic and relies on a succession of hierarchy, upholding sound judgement. It that fails we now have the European Court of Human Rights and the European Citizens' Charter which hold precedence over all national courts and legislation.