"Observing that the word "f**k off" is a sexually coloured
remark, a Delhi court has upheld sexual harrasment charges
against a man who had allegedly threatened a woma using abusive
language. The court of additional sessions judge Sanjay Sharma
observed that in the ordinary sense, i is "abusive, offensive,
and humiliating", while hearing a revision petition in an order
by a mahila court that framed charges against the accused under
the IPC[1]"

-- Times of India Nov 6 2022.

[1] Indian Penal Code

couldn;t spot it online. online I found one article
https://newsable.asianetnews.com/india/-f-k-off-is-offensive-sexually-coloured-phase-and-not-used-in-indian-society-delhi-court-in-abuse-case-ajr-rkwvwi

On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 11:13:35 +0530, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

>
> "Observing that the word "f**k off" is a sexually coloured
> remark, a Delhi court has upheld sexual harrasment charges
> against a man who had allegedly threatened a woma using abusive
> language. The court of additional sessions judge Sanjay Sharma
> observed that in the ordinary sense, i is "abusive, offensive,
> and humiliating", while hearing a revision petition in an order
> by a mahila court that framed charges against the accused under
> the IPC[1]"
>
> -- Times of India Nov 6 2022.

I'm not sure what your point is in posting this, but I'll comment that
nether "f**k off" nor "fuck off" is a word, and I'm surprised to see a
newspaper say it is.

On 07/11/2022 17:56, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 11:13:35 +0530, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Observing that the word "f**k off" is a sexually coloured
>> remark, a Delhi court has upheld sexual harrasment charges
>> against a man who had allegedly threatened a woma using abusive
>> language. The court of additional sessions judge Sanjay Sharma
>> observed that in the ordinary sense, i is "abusive, offensive,
>> and humiliating", while hearing a revision petition in an order
>> by a mahila court that framed charges against the accused under
>> the IPC[1]"
>>
>> -- Times of India Nov 6 2022.
>
> I'm not sure what your point is in posting this, but I'll comment that
> nether "f**k off" nor "fuck off" is a word, and I'm surprised to see a
> newspaper say it is.

Where does the Times of India refer to it as a 'word'? (It does not.)
'A sexually coloured remark' is the only reference in the quoted paragraph.

On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 4:34:30 PM UTC-5, occam wrote:
> On 07/11/2022 17:56, Ken Blake wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 11:13:35 +0530, Madhu <eno...@meer.net> wrote:

> >> "Observing that the word "f**k off" is a sexually coloured
> >> remark, a Delhi court has upheld sexual harrasment charges
> >> against a man who had allegedly threatened a woma using abusive
> >> language. The court of additional sessions judge Sanjay Sharma
> >> observed that in the ordinary sense, i is "abusive, offensive,
> >> and humiliating", while hearing a revision petition in an order
> >> by a mahila court that framed charges against the accused under
> >> the IPC[1]"
> >> -- Times of India Nov 6 2022.
> > I'm not sure what your point is in posting this, but I'll comment that
> > nether "f**k off" nor "fuck off" is a word, and I'm surprised to see a
> > newspaper say it is.
>
> Where does the Times of India refer to it as a 'word'? (It does not.)
> 'A sexually coloured remark' is the only reference in the quoted paragraph.

Between "Observing that the" and "f**k off."

On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 22:34:23 +0100, occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

>On 07/11/2022 17:56, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 11:13:35 +0530, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Observing that the word "f**k off" is a sexually coloured
>>> remark, a Delhi court has upheld sexual harrasment charges
>>> against a man who had allegedly threatened a woma using abusive
>>> language. The court of additional sessions judge Sanjay Sharma
>>> observed that in the ordinary sense, i is "abusive, offensive,
>>> and humiliating", while hearing a revision petition in an order
>>> by a mahila court that framed charges against the accused under
>>> the IPC[1]"
>>>
>>> -- Times of India Nov 6 2022.
>>
>> I'm not sure what your point is in posting this, but I'll comment that
>> nether "f**k off" nor "fuck off" is a word, and I'm surprised to see a
>> newspaper say it is.
>
>Where does the Times of India refer to it as a 'word'? (It does not.)
>'A sexually coloured remark' is the only reference in the quoted paragraph.

Look at the fourth word in the quote: ""Observing that the word "f**k
off" ....

On 11/7/2022 4:55 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> occam wrote:
>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>> Madhu <eno...@meer.net> wrote:

>>>> "Observing that the word "f**k off" is a sexually coloured
>>>> remark, a Delhi court has upheld sexual harrasment charges
>>>> against a man who had allegedly threatened a woma using
>>>> abusive language. The court of additional sessions judge Sanjay
>>>> Sharma observed that in the ordinary sense, i is "abusive,
>>>> offensive, and humiliating", while hearing a revision petition
>>>> in an order by a mahila court that framed charges against the
>>>> accused under the IPC[1]" -- Times of India Nov 6 2022.
>>> I'm not sure what your point is in posting this, but I'll comment
>>> that nether "f**k off" nor "fuck off" is a word, and I'm
>>> surprised to see a newspaper say it is.

>> Where does the Times of India refer to it as a 'word'? (It does
>> not.) 'A sexually coloured remark' is the only reference in the
>> quoted paragraph.

> Between "Observing that the" and "f**k off."

In all fairness, it isn't a remark either. It could be called "an
expression", but "an ejaculation" would be even more appropriate.

--
I mean, wholly forking shirtballs, Ms Shelstrop.

[apologies for a fake blake style driveby news posting but this is also
a case of a court determining usage and what constitutes criminal abuse.
in this context there a widespread use of "item song" for bollywood
"dance numbers" ]

"A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
sexual manner.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/calling-girl-item-is-derogatory-used-to-objectify-her-with-sexual-intent-mumbai-court/article66059564.ece

On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 18:41:10 +0530, Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

>
>[apologies for a fake blake style driveby news posting but this is also
>a case of a court determining usage and what constitutes criminal abuse.
>in this context there a widespread use of "item song" for bollywood
>"dance numbers" ]
>
> "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
> years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
> calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
> sexual manner.

Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify a
sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 18:41:10 +0530, Madhu <eno...@meer.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >[apologies for a fake blake style driveby news posting but this is also
> >a case of a court determining usage and what constitutes criminal abuse.
> >in this context there a widespread use of "item song" for bollywood
> >"dance numbers" ]
> >
> > "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
> > years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
> > calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
> > sexual manner.

> Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify a
> sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.

The sentence--I mean the one beginning 'A special court'--doesn't
say that the man's harassment was limited to that derogatory term.

'On July 14, 2015, when the victim was returning from school, the
accused accosted her and called her an "item".

'When the girl asked the man not to harass her, he started abusing her
and pulled her hair.'"

--
Jerry Friedman

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:37:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
<jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 1:15:43 PM UTC-7, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 18:41:10 +0530, Madhu <eno...@meer.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >[apologies for a fake blake style driveby news posting but this is also
>> >a case of a court determining usage and what constitutes criminal abuse.
>> >in this context there a widespread use of "item song" for bollywood
>> >"dance numbers" ]
>> >
>> > "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
>> > years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
>> > calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
>> > sexual manner.
>
>> Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify a
>> sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.
>
>The sentence--I mean the one beginning 'A special court'--doesn't
>say that the man's harassment was limited to that derogatory term.
>
>'On July 14, 2015, when the victim was returning from school, the
>accused accosted her and called her an "item".
>
>'When the girl asked the man not to harass her, he started abusing her
>and pulled her hair.'"

OK, you went to the link. I didn't and only looked at the quote that
was posted.

* Ken Blake <37rlmhtsgi8d9piqh34erkna5ne2gik3nd @4ax.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 08 Nov 2022 16:58:13 -0700:

> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:37:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_friedman @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> > "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
>>> > years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
>>> > calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
>>> > sexual manner.
>>
>>> Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify a
>>> sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.
>>
>>The sentence--I mean the one beginning 'A special court'--doesn't say
>>that the man's harassment was limited to that derogatory term.
>>
>>'On July 14, 2015, when the victim was returning from school, the
>>accused accosted her and called her an "item".
>>
>>'When the girl asked the man not to harass her, he started abusing her
>>and pulled her hair.'"

But the point of the verdict (also if you read the text) is about
"sending a message" and programming the public, not about the specific
offence,

i think likewise it is the case in this dailydail report someone posted
somewhere (url mangled so you wont accidentally click it)

ps://www.dailfail.co.uk/news/

article-11397765/White-University-Kentucky-student-ARRESTED-video-shows-using-racial-slur.html

the headlines would imply that she was charged for racial slurs the
actual charges would be intoxication in public place, third degree
assault on police officer, fourth-degreee assault second degree
disorderly conduct etc.

but the chilling message to would be offenders would be against using
racial slurs

just an analogy which is not tight or even watertight

> OK, you went to the link. I didn't and only looked at the quote that
> was posted.

* Madhu <m3pmdwc0kp.fsf @leonis4.robolove.meer.net> :
Wrote on Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:10:22 +0530:

> * Ken Blake <37rlmhtsgi8d9piqh34erkna5ne2gik3nd @4ax.com> :
> Wrote on Tue, 08 Nov 2022 16:58:13 -0700:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:37:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
>> <jerry_friedman @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> > "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
>>>> > years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
>>>> > calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
>>>> > sexual manner.
>>>
>>>> Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify a
>>>> sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.
>>>
>>>The sentence--I mean the one beginning 'A special court'--doesn't say
>>>that the man's harassment was limited to that derogatory term.
>>>
>>>'On July 14, 2015, when the victim was returning from school, the
>>>accused accosted her and called her an "item".
>>>
>>>'When the girl asked the man not to harass her, he started abusing her
>>>and pulled her hair.'"
>
> But the point of the verdict (also if you read the text) is about
> "sending a message" and programming the public, not about the specific
> offence,
>
> i think likewise it is the case in this dailydail report someone posted
> somewhere (url mangled so you wont accidentally click it)
>
> ps://www.dailfail.co.uk/news/
>
> article-11397765/White-University-Kentucky-student-ARRESTED-video-shows-using-racial-slur.html
>
> the headlines would imply that she was charged for racial slurs the
> actual charges would be intoxication in public place, third degree
> assault on police officer, fourth-degreee assault second degree
> disorderly conduct etc.
>
> but the chilling message to would be offenders would be against using
> racial slurs
>
> just an analogy which is not tight or even watertight

apologies for more of the same, but in the case of the indian penal
codethe charges would be "outraging the modesty of women" or "hurting
the religious sentiments", a favourite one for many politically
motivated charges these are necessarily vague and the usage precedents
are being set to make them concrete on the basis of english usage

>
>> OK, you went to the link. I didn't and only looked at the quote that
>> was posted.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:10:22 +0530
Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:

[]
>
> i think likewise it is the case in this dailydail report someone posted
> somewhere (url mangled so you wont accidentally click it)
>
> ps://www.dailfail.co.uk/news/
>
>
dailyfail.co.uk (DONT Click on it!) sadly does redirect to the dailyhate.
https://www.mend.org.uk/daily-mail-and-the-propagation-of-hate/
if you need f.i.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

* Madhu:

> * Ken Blake <37rlmhtsgi8d9piqh34erkna5ne2gik3nd @4ax.com> :
> Wrote on Tue, 08 Nov 2022 16:58:13 -0700:
>
>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:37:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
>> <jerry_friedman @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> > "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
>>>> > years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
>>>> > calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
>>>> > sexual manner.
>>>
>>>> Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify a
>>>> sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.
>>>
>>>The sentence--I mean the one beginning 'A special court'--doesn't say
>>>that the man's harassment was limited to that derogatory term.
>>>
>>>'On July 14, 2015, when the victim was returning from school, the
>>>accused accosted her and called her an "item".
>>>
>>>'When the girl asked the man not to harass her, he started abusing her
>>>and pulled her hair.'"
>
> But the point of the verdict (also if you read the text) is about
> "sending a message" and programming the public, not about the specific
> offence,

And every murder conviction sends a message and programs the public not
to kill others. That's one function of a judicial system.

I still find "program" an unusual choice of words. It's usually seen as
"upholding the social order". With some people, arguments and appeals
don't work, so the specter of punishment is added.

--
Odo: I've met a lot of Ferengis in my time ... though some of
them may have been more wealthy, I've never met one more devious.
Quark: Thank you Odo, that means a lot to me.

On 11/8/2022 3:37 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> Ken Blake wrote:
>> Madhu <eno...@meer.net> wrote:

>>> [apologies for a fake blake style driveby news posting but this
>>> is also a case of a court determining usage and what constitutes
>>> criminal abuse. in this context there a widespread use of "item
>>> song" for bollywood "dance numbers" ]

>>> "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
>>> years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
>>> calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
>>> sexual manner.

>> Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify
>> a sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.

> The sentence--I mean the one beginning 'A special court'--doesn't say
> that the man's harassment was limited to that derogatory term.

> 'On July 14, 2015, when the victim was returning from school, the
> accused accosted her and called her an "item".

> 'When the girl asked the man not to harass her, he started abusing
> her and pulled her hair.'"

Still a stiff sentence for minor assault, but news reports of horrific
gang-rapes in India may justify strong discouragement.

Den 09.11.2022 kl. 03.40 skrev Madhu:

> But the point of the verdict (also if you read the text) is about
> "sending a message" and programming the public, not about the specific
> offence,

In general there are three reasons to punish a crime:

1. Revenge
2. Keep the perpetrator from doing it again, physically (jail) and (if
no death penalty) by teaching in a broad sense.
3. Demonstrate to others that crime triggers an unpleasant situation.

They are all relevant for a verdict, but the weight of each point may
differ.

--
Bertel

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 7:04:18 AM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 09.11.2022 kl. 03.40 skrev Madhu:
>
> > But the point of the verdict (also if you read the text) is about
> > "sending a message" and programming the public, not about the specific
> > offence,

> In general there are three reasons to punish a crime:
>
> 1. Revenge
> 2. Keep the perpetrator from doing it again, physically (jail) and (if
> no death penalty) by teaching in a broad sense.
> 3. Demonstrate to others that crime triggers an unpleasant situation.
>
> They are all relevant for a verdict, but the weight of each point may
> differ.

4. Restitution--forcing the criminal to give back what they stole, or the
value of it.

5. Forcing the criminal to undergo an attempt at rehabilitation.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 8:33:24 AM UTC-7, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 7:04:18 AM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > Den 09.11.2022 kl. 03.40 skrev Madhu:
> >
> > > But the point of the verdict (also if you read the text) is about
> > > "sending a message" and programming the public, not about the specific
> > > offence,
>
> > In general there are three reasons to punish a crime:
> >
> > 1. Revenge
> > 2. Keep the perpetrator from doing it again, physically (jail) and (if
> > no death penalty) by teaching in a broad sense.
> > 3. Demonstrate to others that crime triggers an unpleasant situation.
> >
> > They are all relevant for a verdict, but the weight of each point may
> > differ.

> 4. Restitution--forcing the criminal to give back what they stole, or the
> value of it.
>
> 5. Forcing the criminal to undergo an attempt at rehabilitation.

6. Revenue in the form of fines for the government or a particular
government agency. (In the U.S., I think this is mostly for minor violations
that wouldn't usually be called crimes.)

--
Jerry Friedman

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 7:45:56 PM UTC-7, Madhu wrote:
> * Madhu <m3pmdwc0kp.fsf @leonis4.robolove.meer.net> :
> Wrote on Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:10:22 +0530:
> > * Ken Blake <37rlmhtsgi8d9piqh34erkna5ne2gik3nd @4ax.com> :
> > Wrote on Tue, 08 Nov 2022 16:58:13 -0700:
> >
> >> On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:37:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
> >> <jerry_friedman @yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> > "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
> >>>> > years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
> >>>> > calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
> >>>> > sexual manner.
> >>>
> >>>> Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify a
> >>>> sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.
> >>>
> >>>The sentence--I mean the one beginning 'A special court'--doesn't say
> >>>that the man's harassment was limited to that derogatory term.
> >>>
> >>>'On July 14, 2015, when the victim was returning from school, the
> >>>accused accosted her and called her an "item".
> >>>
> >>>'When the girl asked the man not to harass her, he started abusing her
> >>>and pulled her hair.'"
> >
> > But the point of the verdict (also if you read the text) is about
> > "sending a message" and programming the public, not about the specific
> > offence,
> >
> > i think likewise it is the case in this dailydail report someone posted
> > somewhere (url mangled so you wont accidentally click it)
> >
> > ps://www.dailfail.co.uk/news/
> >
> > article-11397765/White-University-Kentucky-student-ARRESTED-video-shows-using-racial-slur.html
> >
> > the headlines would imply that she was charged for racial slurs the
> > actual charges would be intoxication in public place, third degree
> > assault on police officer, fourth-degreee assault second degree
> > disorderly conduct etc.
> >
> > but the chilling message to would be offenders would be against using
> > racial slurs
> >
> > just an analogy which is not tight or even watertight
> apologies for more of the same, but in the case of the indian penal
> codethe charges would be "outraging the modesty of women" or "hurting
> the religious sentiments", a favourite one for many politically
> motivated charges these are necessarily vague and the usage precedents
> are being set to make them concrete on the basis of english usage

So the perpetrator used the English word "item"? Maybe in the context of
Marathi or another Indian language?

And you expect other judges to follow this precedent?

And by the way, how do you understand "abusing her", as the criminal is
reported to have done? Verbal or physical abuse?

--
Jerry Friedman

El Tue, 08 Nov 2022 07:56:21 -0500, CDB escribió:

> On 11/7/2022 4:55 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> occam wrote:
>>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>>> Madhu <eno...@meer.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> "Observing that the word "f**k off" is a sexually coloured remark, a
>>>>> Delhi court has upheld sexual harrasment charges against a man who
>>>>> had allegedly threatened a woma using abusive language. The court of
>>>>> additional sessions judge Sanjay Sharma observed that in the
>>>>> ordinary sense, i is "abusive, offensive, and humiliating", while
>>>>> hearing a revision petition in an order by a mahila court that
>>>>> framed charges against the accused under the IPC[1]" -- Times of
>>>>> India Nov 6 2022.
>>>> I'm not sure what your point is in posting this, but I'll comment
>>>> that nether "f**k off" nor "fuck off" is a word, and I'm surprised to
>>>> see a newspaper say it is.
>
>>> Where does the Times of India refer to it as a 'word'? (It does not.)
>>> 'A sexually coloured remark' is the only reference in the quoted
>>> paragraph.
>
>> Between "Observing that the" and "f**k off."
>
> In all fairness, it isn't a remark either. It could be called "an
> expression", but "an ejaculation" would be even more appropriate.

And of course, in that context, the verb has no sexual meaning. Fuck is 2
different verbs. And not always even a verb "Get the fuck out of here"
just means go away.

I mean, FFS!

Why am I in this thread? I have half the participants killfiled since
forever ago.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

On 2022-11-09 04:55, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:10:22 +0530
> Madhu <enometh@meer.net> wrote:
>
> []
>>
>> i think likewise it is the case in this dailydail report someone posted
>> somewhere (url mangled so you wont accidentally click it)
>>
>> ps://www.dailfail.co.uk/news/
>>
>>
> dailyfail.co.uk (DONT Click on it!) sadly does redirect to the dailyhate.
> https://www.mend.org.uk/daily-mail-and-the-propagation-of-hate/
> if you need f.i.

Interesting.
I dis find something on the link you provided.

One sentence reads:
"Yet despite websites of a number of mainstream newspapers, including
the Daily Mail, acting as a haven for online prejudice, the online harms
strategy being proposed by the Government appears to disregard them from
any regulatory measures. "

I am wondering about the use of "disregard them".
It's a usage of disregard that I have not seen before.

--
I didn't say it was your fault; I said I was blaming you.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 08:53:03 -0500, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/8/2022 3:37 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>> Madhu <eno...@meer.net> wrote:
>
>>>> [apologies for a fake blake style driveby news posting but this
>>>> is also a case of a court determining usage and what constitutes
>>>> criminal abuse. in this context there a widespread use of "item
>>>> song" for bollywood "dance numbers" ]
>
>>>> "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
>>>> years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
>>>> calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
>>>> sexual manner.
>
>>> Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify
>>> a sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.
>
>> The sentence--I mean the one beginning 'A special court'--doesn't say
>> that the man's harassment was limited to that derogatory term.
>
>> 'On July 14, 2015, when the victim was returning from school, the
>> accused accosted her and called her an "item".
>
>> 'When the girl asked the man not to harass her, he started abusing
>> her and pulled her hair.'"
>
>Still a stiff sentence for minor assault, but news reports of horrific
>gang-rapes in India may justify strong discouragement.
>

What came to my mind, rather than a punishment addressing
a wider social problem, was the possibility that this individual was,
as they say, "known to the police." Was this a chance for the
police and court system to get a conviction, and get him off the
street?

In the US, there is widespread use of plea bargaining, whereby
the person admits to a crime that is less "serious" on their record
and (they hope) in punishment. - I noticed in Texas, in 1968,
some dude got sentenced to years in jail after pleading guilty to
possession of marijuana: several burglary charges had been
dropped in exchange for the guilty plea. (That sort of plea-and-
consequence will confound the statistics collected for Who
serves how long for What crimes.)

--
Rich Ulrich

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 10:41:08 AM UTC-7, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 08:53:03 -0500, CDB <belle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 11/8/2022 3:37 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >> Ken Blake wrote:
> >>> Madhu <eno...@meer.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> [apologies for a fake blake style driveby news posting but this
> >>>> is also a case of a court determining usage and what constitutes
> >>>> criminal abuse. in this context there a widespread use of "item
> >>>> song" for bollywood "dance numbers" ]
> >
> >>>> "A special court in Mumbai has sentenced a man to one-and-a-half
> >>>> years imprisonment for harassing a minor girl, observing that
> >>>> calling a girl an "item" is derogatory and objectifies her in a
> >>>> sexual manner.
> >
> >>> Incredible. I agree that it's derogatory, but that doesn't justify
> >>> a sentence of 1-1/2 years in prison.
> >
> >> The sentence--I mean the one beginning 'A special court'--doesn't say
> >> that the man's harassment was limited to that derogatory term.
> >
> >> 'On July 14, 2015, when the victim was returning from school, the
> >> accused accosted her and called her an "item".
> >
> >> 'When the girl asked the man not to harass her, he started abusing
> >> her and pulled her hair.'"
> >
> >Still a stiff sentence for minor assault, but news reports of horrific
> >gang-rapes in India may justify strong discouragement.
> >
> What came to my mind, rather than a punishment addressing
> a wider social problem, was the possibility that this individual was,
> as they say, "known to the police." Was this a chance for the
> police and court system to get a conviction, and get him off the
> street?

Something that came to my mind was whether things like the
socioeconomic statuses of the criminal and the victim might be
involved in the sentence.

> In the US, there is widespread use of plea bargaining, whereby
> the person admits to a crime that is less "serious" on their record
> and (they hope) in punishment. - I noticed in Texas, in 1968,
> some dude got sentenced to years in jail after pleading guilty to
> possession of marijuana: several burglary charges had been
> dropped in exchange for the guilty plea. (That sort of plea-and-
> consequence will confound the statistics collected for Who
> serves how long for What crimes.)

One of the long-standing conflicts of American society is whether that
sort of thing is good law enforcement or an evasion of civil rights and
an invitation to prejudice.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 09-Nov-22 15:33, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 7:04:18 AM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Den 09.11.2022 kl. 03.40 skrev Madhu:
>>
>>> But the point of the verdict (also if you read the text) is about
>>> "sending a message" and programming the public, not about the specific
>>> offence,
>
>> In general there are three reasons to punish a crime:
>>
>> 1. Revenge
>> 2. Keep the perpetrator from doing it again, physically (jail) and (if
>> no death penalty) by teaching in a broad sense.
>> 3. Demonstrate to others that crime triggers an unpleasant situation.
>>
>> They are all relevant for a verdict, but the weight of each point may
>> differ.
>
> 4. Restitution--forcing the criminal to give back what they stole, or the
> value of it.

Blood money is still a thing in some legal systems.

>
> 5. Forcing the criminal to undergo an attempt at rehabilitation.
>

--
Sam Plusnet

* Jerry Friedman <77f4b1b5-3a00-4994-8854-f6d69dc2b64an@googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Wed, 9 Nov 2022 07:39:23 -0800 (PST):

> So the perpetrator used the English word "item"? Maybe in the context of
> Marathi or another Indian language?

backstory at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Item_number

>> apologies for more of the same, but in the case of the indian penal
>> codethe charges would be "outraging the modesty of women" or "hurting
>> the religious sentiments", a favourite one for many politically
>> motivated charges these are necessarily vague and the usage
>> precedents are being set to make them concrete on the basis of
>> english usage

> And you expect other judges to follow this precedent?

I'm not sure what you mean. My comment was on the trend. This is the
first time i've heard of "item" being used in the concept of harrassing
women on the street. The meaning (please see wikipedia article above is
mainstream, and "item number" is almost job title in bollywood)

Another example is the recent reporting of convictions of indians under
the terrorism charge - for radicalisation by ISIS for waging war on the
state. The evidence is social media chats and use of keywords(more
often than not a honeypot operative at the other end), where keywords
and usage are used to bring in the charges.

> And by the way, how do you understand "abusing her", as the criminal is
> reported to have done? Verbal or physical abuse?

The reports clearly include both.