What a kvlt band Seriously though raping is wrong, he should've stopped it when he had the chance.

Lol well I hope nothing like that happens again , poor girl ..

what the hell? What kind of people are they? he SHOULD have helpt that girl. no doubt! what gaahl did is also outrageous. you don't do that!

Hahaha! LMAO.

Rape and stuff sucks, but that is one seriously fucking ass-kicking title for a news item.

what a stupid law.. charged for doing nothing..
in English law you actually have to do an act to committ an offence - over here if you witnessed a murder for example and did nothing to stop it - you still cannot be convicted of anything because you committed no wrong act!
oh well.. it is different in different countries though and opinions will always differ
this could be a good discussion you know.. but not for this news thread

Written by Baz Anderson on 24.03.2007 at 18:39

what a stupid law.. charged for doing nothing..
in English law you actually have to do an act to committ an offence - over here if you witnessed a murder for example and did nothing to stop it - you still cannot be convicted of anything because you committed no wrong act!
oh well.. it is different in different countries though and opinions will always differ
this could be a good discussion you know.. but not for this news thread

Here in Belgium, you are of course guilty because you neglected to help a person in need/danger. It's called "commission by omission".
Somewhere this is logical I think (but then again, I'm a criminologist ) because you fail in your civic duty and you neglect to help people who need your help, which makes you equally criminal. If you see someone who is being raped, and you don't do anything to stop that offence, you're an accessory to that offence, as simple as that.

Some definition I found in a German penal law code (just to give you a juridical idea of what we're talking about): "Whoever fails to avert a result belonging to the act definition in a penal law is only punishable under this law if he is legally responsible for the non-occurrence of the result and if the omission is equivalent to the manifestation of the statutory act definition by commission."

In Belgium, the punishment for not helping people who are in great need and/or serious danger, is from 8 days to 1 year (if the person in need is minor, it is 2 years) and a penance from ?225 to ?2250. It is required though the person was able to help without any danger for himself or another.

EDIT: it's not about you did nothing wrong, it is about you did nothing at all, which is wrong because you neglected help...

this guys are really crazy.

There's something I didn't understand about the news... they said that Infernus is having meetings with Gaahl and King, but wasn't it King who left the band some months ago??

good to see Infernus and Gaahl back though...

Written by Thryce on 24.03.2007 at 19:02

Written by Baz Anderson on 24.03.2007 at 18:39

what a stupid law.. charged for doing nothing..
in English law you actually have to do an act to committ an offence - over here if you witnessed a murder for example and did nothing to stop it - you still cannot be convicted of anything because you committed no wrong act!
oh well.. it is different in different countries though and opinions will always differ
this could be a good discussion you know.. but not for this news thread

Here in Belgium, you are of course guilty because you neglected to help a person in need/danger. It's called "commission by omission".
Somewhere this is logical I think (but then again, I'm a criminologist ) because you fail in your civic duty and you neglect to help people who need your help, which makes you equally criminal. If you see someone who is being raped, and you don't do anything to stop that offence, you're an accessory to that offence, as simple as that.

Some definition I found in a German penal law code (just to give you a juridical idea of what we're talking about): "Whoever fails to avert a result belonging to the act definition in a penal law is only punishable under this law if he is legally responsible for the non-occurrence of the result and if the omission is equivalent to the manifestation of the statutory act definition by commission."

In Belgium, the punishment for not helping people who are in great need and/or serious danger, is from 8 days to 1 year (if the person in need is minor, it is 2 years) and a penance from ?225 to ?2250. It is required though the person was able to help without any danger for himself or another.

EDIT: it's not about you did nothing wrong, it is about you did nothing at all, which is wrong because you neglected help...

wow - I prefer our law we have here. hahaha. if I saw someone I hated getting killed I wouldnt want to help him!
also this means that in certain situations people have an obligation put on them to help someone in need, but this could also be dangerous for the person with the obligation..
I certainly wouldnt want to put myself in danger for anyone I didnt know.. sorry if it seems nasty, but its just natural to feel.
also if someone was witnessing a crime and was frozen as they were too scared to even move.. it would not be fair on them to charge them for not helping..

I dont do criminology (I nearly did though..) but I did do a law course for a couple of years before university and I liked that.. if I wasnt doing psychology in university now I would be doing law instead

Yeah, that 'good Samaritan' law also exists in France and Holland I think. At least that's what I was taught.

Well, Gorgoroth are all out of prison now. Let's watch them do something...

haha seinfeld had two episodes about this "guilty by-standers" i dont get the raping tho.i think he raped just for the thrill or record.girl would do anything with him if he just asked.they are mean rockstars eh.we know how it works.after all it's an after party right?not someone from the street...

Written by Daru Jericho on 25.03.2007 at 01:18

Yeah, that 'good Samaritan' law also exists in France and Holland I think. At least that's what I was taught.

In Seinfeld, too...

'raping a young woman' band with the clearst image...
sometimes gaahl, threatening to drink blood...and this time its infernus once again lol

Written by Baz Anderson on 24.03.2007 at 18:39

what a stupid law.. charged for doing nothing..
in English law you actually have to do an act to committ an offence - over here if you witnessed a murder for example and did nothing to stop it - you still cannot be convicted of anything because you committed no wrong act!
oh well.. it is different in different countries though and opinions will always differ
this could be a good discussion you know.. but not for this news thread

Uh, here in England you will be charged as an accessory to that crime.

Incredible, all Gorgoroth members are out of jail!

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 11:27

Written by Baz Anderson on 24.03.2007 at 18:39

what a stupid law.. charged for doing nothing..
in English law you actually have to do an act to committ an offence - over here if you witnessed a murder for example and did nothing to stop it - you still cannot be convicted of anything because you committed no wrong act!
oh well.. it is different in different countries though and opinions will always differ
this could be a good discussion you know.. but not for this news thread

Uh, here in England you will be charged as an accessory to that crime.

not if you didnt perform any act..
you can sit on a bench in a park and watch someone drown for example and you wouldnt be charged with anything..

Written by ~Starchild~ on 25.03.2007 at 13:38


but would have YOU really done NOTHING if your friend was raping a girl, and you COULD have done something? didn't you feel guilty as well?

in this case infernus would have been able to do something and in my opinion he should have stayed in prison for much longer, he destroyed the women's life as well

haha well I wouldnt have any friends that would do anything like that..
of course it is always hard to hypothetically put yourself in that situation and deduce what you would actually do.. but I think even if there were two anonymous people the same age as me and (because people like the rape example) one was raping the other - I seriously doubt I would step in and do anything purely because of the danger it would raise for myself
guilt.. guilt is easily pushed aside

haha of course in a more ideal world (apart from this stuff not going on) everyone would intervene in these situations - maybe a lot of people would in this world, but in my defence the place I grew up taught me to never get involved with anything like that - I grew up in one of the worst places in the country, a place where people carry knives and whatever else (well thats getting more and more common now too). someone was stabbed in the town centre of where I grew up during the day and no one went to help at all
if I was to ever intervene in anything back there I would probably end up dead myself, and I dont really like the idea of that..
so that is my defence for not wanting to intervene, even if conscience would perhaps put forward a weak arguement to go and help

Written by Baz Anderson on 25.03.2007 at 16:15

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 11:27

Uh, here in England you will be charged as an accessory to that crime.

not if you didnt perform any act..
you can sit on a bench in a park and watch someone drown for example and you wouldnt be charged with anything..

No, if you saw somebody drowning then you wouldn't be charged with anything, but if you watched somebody holding someone else underwater until they drowned and didn't do anything - including reporting it to the police - then you will be an accessory to that crime.

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 17:27

Written by Baz Anderson on 25.03.2007 at 16:15

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 11:27

Uh, here in England you will be charged as an accessory to that crime.

not if you didnt perform any act..
you can sit on a bench in a park and watch someone drown for example and you wouldnt be charged with anything..

No, if you saw somebody drowning then you wouldn't be charged with anything, but if you watched somebody holding someone else underwater until they drowned and didn't do anything - including reporting it to the police - then you will be an accessory to that crime.

I disagree with you
s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 as amended by s65(4) Criminal Law Act 1977:

"Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender."

you need to "aid, abet, counsel, or procure" to become an accessory - sitting and watching a crime take place is none of them.

Written by Baz Anderson on 25.03.2007 at 17:37

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 17:27

Written by Baz Anderson on 25.03.2007 at 16:15

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 11:27

Uh, here in England you will be charged as an accessory to that crime.

not if you didnt perform any act..
you can sit on a bench in a park and watch someone drown for example and you wouldnt be charged with anything..

No, if you saw somebody drowning then you wouldn't be charged with anything, but if you watched somebody holding someone else underwater until they drowned and didn't do anything - including reporting it to the police - then you will be an accessory to that crime.

I disagree with you
s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 as amended by s65(4) Criminal Law Act 1977:

"Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender."

you need to "aid, abet, counsel, or procure" to become an accessory - sitting and watching a crime take place is none of them.

At risk of taking this completely off-topic: if you don't report a crime or take reasonable measures to stop the crime from happening, then you're aiding the crime.

It isn't so much the act of sitting and watching the crime, it's the act of not trying to stop it or report it that makes you an accessory to it.

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 17:46

Written by Baz Anderson on 25.03.2007 at 17:37

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 17:27

Written by Baz Anderson on 25.03.2007 at 16:15

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 11:27

Uh, here in England you will be charged as an accessory to that crime.

not if you didnt perform any act..
you can sit on a bench in a park and watch someone drown for example and you wouldnt be charged with anything..

No, if you saw somebody drowning then you wouldn't be charged with anything, but if you watched somebody holding someone else underwater until they drowned and didn't do anything - including reporting it to the police - then you will be an accessory to that crime.

I disagree with you
s8 Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 as amended by s65(4) Criminal Law Act 1977:

"Whosoever shall aid, abet, counsel, or procure the commission of any indictable offence, whether the same be an offence at common law or by virtue of any Act passed or to be passed, shall be liable to be tried, indicted, and punished as a principal offender."

you need to "aid, abet, counsel, or procure" to become an accessory - sitting and watching a crime take place is none of them.

At risk of taking this completely off-topic: if you don't report a crime or take reasonable measures to stop the crime from happening, then you're aiding the crime.

It isn't so much the act of sitting and watching the crime, it's the act of not trying to stop it or report it that makes you an accessory to it.

but there is no such thing as 'not trying to stop it' that is just an omission - and you can not really aid something by omitting to do anything
I was taught that we just use the natural meaning of the word 'aid' to interpret what it means - and that is just to help or give assistance to
I know nothing of 'not reporting a crime' - but if you say it is a form of aiding then I will believe you..

(haha, I doubt it matters that much about going off topic - at least theres an interesting discussion going on..)

Well, it's a difficult point. I can see what you mean about an omission not really aiding an act. The problem is, if somebody was to witness a murder, would they be justified in not reporting it to the police? I think it would be quite hard to show that it's not your civic responsibility to report or try to stop a crime, especially when that crime is against somebody specifically, like rape, bodily harm or murder.

Written by gid on 25.03.2007 at 18:22

Well, it's a difficult point. I can see what you mean about an omission not really aiding an act. The problem is, if somebody was to witness a murder, would they be justified in not reporting it to the police? I think it would be quite hard to show that it's not your civic responsibility to report or try to stop a crime, especially when that crime is against somebody specifically, like rape, bodily harm or murder.

yes but still people may put on themselves a social or moral responsibility to report a crime, but I dont know of any law in this country that states people must report a crime they have seen
I mean we see common law assaults all the time but dont report anything.. it would be hard for some statute to define what crimes a person would be obliged, under law, to have to report

Well, since the topic has somehow changed:
If you see someone misbehaving in our forums but don't report it to mods, I can ensure you that it will get on our nerves