Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
scholar

[*] posted on 6-12-2007 at 00:14
Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
Is breaking the terms of probation a crime???

Isn't it just a condition to be allowed more freedom, and when the condition is broken the extra freedom is removed? If so, why add an extra punishement, when buying a lottery ticket (assuming he's an adult) is not in itself a crime.
That is the way I was thinking of it.
janet

[*] posted on 5-12-2007 at 22:30
I think breaking the rules of probation is a crime, tbh - and generally one that results in a return to prison...?
dr john

[*] posted on 5-12-2007 at 22:15
Is breaking the terms of probation a crime???

Isn't it just a condition to be allowed more freedom, and when the condition is broken the extra freedom is removed? If so, why add an extra punishement, when buying a lottery ticket (assuming he's an adult) is not in itself a crime.
Redwolf5150

[*] posted on 2-12-2007 at 01:20
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
For purposes of discussion, consider this:
A man can make $100,000 if he can meet some people and sign a contract today--the last day he has the option to do so. It is minutes before the deadline, so he speeds to the meeting and signs just before time runs out, and makes the $100,000.

He broke the law to get the $100,000. The $100,000 was entirely contingent on his breaking the law. Now, does he pay a fine for speeding, and keep the $100,000, or does he forfeit the $100,000 because he committed a crime to get it?

What do you think?


In apple example in the quote, the person did not get caught!

Unlike the orange example in the initial post where the person was busted for breaking the terms of his parole/probation.

In all likelihood, he will probably lose his freedom AND his freedom.

Fittingly so, too.

kewl_glasses
victor

[*] posted on 2-12-2007 at 01:02
The winnings were the proceeds of a crime (breaking terms of probation) and in the UK all proceeds of crime are forfeit.
the bear

[*] posted on 2-12-2007 at 00:39
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
For purposes of discussion, consider this:
A man can make $100,000 if he can meet some people and sign a contract today--the last day he has the option to do so. It is minutes before the deadline, so he speeds to the meeting and signs just before time runs out, and makes the $100,000.

He broke the law to get the $100,000. The $100,000 was entirely contingent on his breaking the law. Now, does he pay a fine for speeding, and keep the $100,000, or does he forfeit the $100,000 because he committed a crime to get it?

What do you think?



Scholar you are being rather obtuse with your discussion topic, In the case stated the court has ruled in a specific way, ie Paroled people are not permitted to gamble, it did not rule that paroled prisoners are not permitted to break the speed limit. further more speeding drivers may get a ticket but the said ticket does not lead to a monetary gain, just the opposite I think????


Regards the Bear
LSemmens

[*] posted on 1-12-2007 at 10:45
Splitting hairs here, Scholar, slow day at the office?

A person cannot profit from the commission of a crime - Law

A crime that is committed that is unrelated to the act of making a profit does not make said profits the proceeds of the criminal act. If you try and argue that one in court, you would lose.
scholar

[*] posted on 1-12-2007 at 03:03
For purposes of discussion, consider this:
A man can make $100,000 if he can meet some people and sign a contract today--the last day he has the option to do so. It is minutes before the deadline, so he speeds to the meeting and signs just before time runs out, and makes the $100,000.

He broke the law to get the $100,000. The $100,000 was entirely contingent on his breaking the law. Now, does he pay a fine for speeding, and keep the $100,000, or does he forfeit the $100,000 because he committed a crime to get it?

What do you think?
the bear

[*] posted on 1-12-2007 at 00:37
Quote:
Originally posted by janet
I'd have thought it fairly obvious - he can't collect because one may not profit by the commission of a crime.

It was illegal for him to buy the ticket.



How can you split the two, it was illegle for him to buy a ticket, so it follows that the proceeds of that purchase have been gained by perpertrating a crime, His winnings are therefor forfieted.

Regards the bear
scholar

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 20:05
Quote:
Originally posted by dr john
I'm with scholar on this one .

-------------------drop_down

greengrin
dr john

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 19:26
I'm with scholar on this one - he gets punished for breaking probation, but the winnings are waiting for him when he gets out. As was said, it was the buying of a ticket that was naughty, nothing about winning being a crime.
janet

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 15:13
I'd have thought it fairly obvious - he can't collect because one may not profit by the commission of a crime.

It was illegal for him to buy the ticket.
scholar

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 15:10
I've wondered if it might turn out like this: the lottery pays him the winnings (because they probably do not have anything in the rules that say "we do not pay out to felons on parole who have as a condition of parole that they may not gamble"--who would have thought of it?). But, because he violated probation, he can be put in prison to serve his sentence. If he has five years to serve, he might have something like $250,000 minus taxes waiting for him when he gets out.

The rule of probation, as I understand it, is that he not BUY A LOTTERY TICKET--an offense he has irrevokably committed. It says nothing against collecting checks.

I wonder if he robbed the bank because of great debt due to gambling, or worsened by gambling. If the purpose of the prohibition was to keep him from gambling himself to desperate poverty, the act of winning (if he can get effective treatment to stop him from compulsive gambling) may have achieved the intended result.:o
Swish Checkley

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 14:11
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
He may end up losing more than his winnings. If not gambling was a condition of his parole, he may actually be convicted of breaching his parole conditions and lose his liberty too.

Serve him right too. What a stupid thing to do.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 12:26
He may end up losing more than his winnings. If not gambling was a condition of his parole, he may actually be convicted of breaching his parole conditions and lose his liberty too.
Swish Checkley

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 10:08
As one of my school teachers used to say; 'the answer is in the question'. If he is not allowed to buy a ticket, he should not be allowed to keep his winnings. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
the bear

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 03:30
The terms of his probation say he should'nt even buy a ticket, by defying the court order he should forfeit his winnings and the monies be given to a worthy charity.


Regards the Bear
Dreamweaver

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 02:59
I would say no.
He knew the terms of his parole etc. Much the same as lottery workers can't play I think.
scholar

[*] posted on 30-11-2007 at 02:55
I heard a radio report about this.

Under the terms of the lottery, he was supposed to get $50,000 per year for 20 years. He posed for a picture as he was given his first check, and the picture was posted on the website. After someone recognized him as a convict on non-gambling probation, he got into trouble over it. I heard the picture has since been removed.

I will be interested in hearing the final outcome.
marymary100

[*] posted on 29-11-2007 at 19:42
Scratch card lottery winner Timothy Elliott scooped $1m (nearly 500,000), but it seems his winnings have been thrown into question as he is not strictly supposed to gamble.

Elliott, of Massachusetts is a convicted bank robber and it is reported that under his probation rules he "may not gamble, purchase lottery tickets or visit an establishment where gaming is conducted, including restaurants where Keno may be played."

A court hearing has been put in place to determine whether Elliott violated his probation terms and the court will decide what will become of his winnings.