University of Twente NOC Fire Arson 343
Lars writes "A 26-year old man from Hengelo has admitted to deliberately setting fire to the Network Operations Centre of University of Twente, last Wednesday. The fire gutted two wings of the building and devastated one of the fastest networks in Europe.
The arsonist is an employee of the University, which must come as quite a shock to those involved.
The University released a short statement to the press.
It mentions that the total damage caused is roughly 40-50 million euros (about the same in dollars) and that the guy was caught last Friday, when he tried to set fire to one of the faculty buildings."
How's he gonna repay it? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, this guy gets out when he is 30yrs old, can find a job and move on with his life looking for more buildings to burn down. isnt there something wrong with that?
Re:Hhhmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here's the Statement (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you tried Dutch?
Re:How's he gonna repay it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, presumably he'd be required to disclose his conviction to potential employers. I sure wouldn't hire him at that point - if he's a disgruntled employee then I don't want to hire him and possibly piss him off. If he's a fire bug then I just don't want him around, period. He could not report that he was convicted, but unless he gets an entirely new identity a routine background check will show the conviction. This is why more and more companies are doing background checks now.
As far as paying back the damages, it's the insurance company that's going to have to suck up the cost of replacement. Yeah, I know - it means everyone who uses that insurerer will have to pay higher premiums for some time. But they're the ones that would have to sue for damages. And they very well may. But getting repaid is obviously not going to happen.
The idea of debtor's prison is long gone, and for a good reason. The idea was that if you caused material harm then you could be thrown in jail until you repaid the harm. But it's rather difficult to earn money when imprisoned, which leads to a rather vicious circle. Debtors prison was often used to perpetually incarcerate political or business opponents. Let's not even think about bringing it back.
Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess that this has been a painful learning experience for the SAs.
Re:How's he gonna repay it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever happened to having "paid one's debt to society"? Assuming that he
does in fact, go to jail and serves time, when does the deeds of one's past no
longer impact who you may be in the future?
SealBeater
Re:DOS attack (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How's he gonna repay it? (Score:1, Insightful)
Interesting that you raised this argument when it is obvious that this guy is already caught in a vicious circle - you pointed out yourself that you would never hire him to do the line of work that presumably he is most qualified to perform.
Mind you, I'm not arguing that he deserves better than what he is getting. However, consider what happens when he gets out of jail - if he isn't able to get a job anywhere then you just have a well-educated man with criminal tendencies with nothing better to do with himself...
Unless you propose to just execute the guy to get him off the streets, it would be a good idea to have some sort of avenue of reform for him to follow should he in fact realize the error of his ways. Otherwise, he'll just be back in prison a few years later - perhaps having caused more damage this time around...
Re:University is also to blame (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How's he gonna repay it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe never. Maybe that's part of the deterrent effect of being caught and convicted of committing a felony that destroyed millions of dollars in equimpent and real estate and endangered many lives.
I dunno, maybe you should have to live with the consequences of your actions for the rest of your life, as well as having to be confined for 3-5 years as "punishment".
I did things when I was young that I'd do over if I could. I have to live with them, every day. Don't you? You do something as big as this, living with it gets that much harder.
Re:Quite frankly, NO (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see, setting a fire and causing millions of dollars/euros in damage is wrong IN YOUR OPINIONWhy on Earth did you need to add the IMO here? Do you think that for some people this is an OK thing to do? Try to get the testicular fortitude to actually say some things are bad or even (God forbid) WRONG!
The wishy-washy, "Well in my opinion arson is kind of wrong, but I can see how some people feel good about it," thinking is dangerous. It leads to the ascension of those who don't believe in any right and wrong, such as the RIAA.
(Man, the things that set me off some days...)
Re:Quite frankly, NO (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree that concrete standards for right and wrong exist, and that wishy-washy handringing and relativism are dangerous.
In small things we can excuse behaviour because 'that is just his way', 'he meant well', 'too young to know better', 'insanity', or any other excuse you might come up with. Depending on the scale of the crime punishment may still needed even if the excuse is accepted. If this guy had voices in his head telling him to set the fire his actions are still wrong. He might not be responsible for those actions, but he still has to be locked up and not released until he is treated (part of which means showing true remorse). If he did this for 'patriotic' reasons then he should suffer severe punishment.
I know I'm offtopic here, but this whole idea is tangled up with the 'patriotism vs. terrorism', and 'personal freedom vs. protection of society' that are playing out right now. RIAA and co. are not the real danger here, they are just opportunists.
Re:Quite frankly, NO (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely you can give some benefit of the doubt to the poster and assume that the IMO is in fact associated with the 'what he did' and not with the 'is wrong'.
It seems more likely to me (due to how I parse english, which judging by my english marks in school all those years ago probably isn't correct) that he is saying that in his opinion he did 'it'. And that that 'it' is wrong. In effect saying 'what he allegedly did is wrong' combinged with 'i believe he did it'.
You seem to be from the US. I thought you guys still had the principal of assumption of innonence which leads to the use of terms like 'allegedly' and 'IMO' to clarify statements which would otherwise be in violation of that principal. Or has Ashcroft made a few more changes?