|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Betting on the outcome of a trial
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
There has recently been some publicity in the UK about the decision of the Irish bookmaker Paddy Power to accept bets on the outcome of the trial of Oscar Pistorius.
I am generally fairly libertarian and not at all sympathetic to the contemporary trend for people who are offended by something to call for it to be banned. However I am very uncomfortable with the idea of betting on the outcome of a trial, for reasons which I cannot articulate very well.
Is there any reason for prohibiting such bets ?
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
The point about the gambling industry is that you can bet on anything. It is by its very nature amoral - and a tax on the gullible and the stupid. The reason the Paddy Power protest took off (and succeeded, thank God) is that it appeared to diminish the significance of the violence perpetrated against a woman and to trivialise her death. Putting boundaries on amorality is part of being a civilised society (an aim which we're just about hanging onto). Betting on (for example) numbers of people killed in the Crimea is ludicrously amoral - and you'd hope that people would never stoop so low - but we do need to define the limits of amorality for those who have no boundaries.
People have strange reactions to trials of celebrities, and it's important to ensure that he gets a fair one - remember O J Simpson...
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
There has recently been some publicity in the UK about the decision of the Irish bookmaker Paddy Power to accept bets on the outcome of the trial of Oscar Pistorius.
I am generally fairly libertarian and not at all sympathetic to the contemporary trend for people who are offended by something to call for it to be banned. However I am very uncomfortable with the idea of betting on the outcome of a trial, for reasons which I cannot articulate very well.
Is there any reason for prohibiting such bets ?
Well one obvious practical reason would be the risk of 'match fixing'.
Obviously it's likely that there's already criminal infiltration in the system, but at that point there must be that added temptation of it not being quite so obvious.
Even granted noble judges/lawyers and jurors then the mere existence adds an extra bias, are you confident to go against the trial by bookies? Again there's a fair bit of influence already there (I suspect) but...
That said the reason I'd be uncomfortable feels probably primarily moral based, but I can't place it either. I guess the start would be hoping for bad things (for 'unrelated' reasons) feeling generally a bit off.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I have several ideas, most of the half baked. But I have always felt gambling of all kinds just doesn't sit right. But then, when Vancouver was just starting to talk about getting the Olympics for 2010 (the winter games), I realized that a company called Intrawest was listed on the stock exchange (since privatised), and I had skied at another of their ski areas (Panorama), and thought that their stock would probably rise if Vancouver and Whistler were selected. So I bought their stock based on skiing at Panorama and the idea that I had about stock price. And I gambled correctly. So while I am against gambling, it appears that I am also not against gambling when it is called something else and is evaluated by my fellow socially adjusted citizens as acceptable.
This criminal trial is about someone's life, and therefore might be considered more important than me betting on a nonliving thing like a stock, but am I not actually justifying my flexible thinking regarding avarice and gambling? Oh probably. Such a world in which we live, where we can justify killing in a war but not of the neighbour I more justifiably hate (hate that he shovels snow on to my yard).
So I say the morality of this is difficult to sketch out. Maybe that the accused is best to be shielded from the knowledge that they are gambling on him. I wouldn't want to know if I was him and it seems unkind to tell him. And we should call the bookie on this one an immoral asshole, and continue to call us stock gamblers socially adjusted.
[ 06. March 2014, 21:35: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Is there any reason for prohibiting such bets ?
Clearly. The risk created by offering a (potentially very large) financial incentive based on the outcome of a trial, that could easily be taken advantage of by someone connected with the trial (friends or family of a juror, witness, advocate or judge...) is an obvious one.
I don't think the fact that betting on the outcome of a murder trial is distasteful is a good enough reason to ban it. No one is being forced to bet on it.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
It isn't correct to say gambling is amoral. It functions on an acceptance that although gaming debts can't be enforced through the courts, people will nevertheless honour them. If that were not the case, there would be no punters and no bookmakers.
I've also long puzzled over why it's widely regarded as more or less immoral. Although I feel that ethically, there's something vaguely dodgy about it, it's not clearly forbidden in scripture.
On the other hand, that might be because it doesn't interest or appeal to me much. I've never bought a lottery ticket. Where do you get a £1's worth of pleasure from buying one. So if it is a sin, as far as I'm concerned, there's plenty more serious ones.
However, betting on the outcome of a stranger's law case is in some other much more fundamental way, deeply distasteful. There's something profoundly different between justice, and which horse wins a race, which number comes up or whether you can fool somebody else that you've different cards in your hand.
Just as pub landlords have to have licences, bookmakers have to have permits. If a landlord can have his or her licence taken away if they run a disorderly house, one wonders if bookmakers should lose their permits if they offer odds on improper subject matter.
[ 06. March 2014, 22:37: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
The reason the Paddy Power protest took off (and succeeded, thank God) is that it appeared to diminish the significance of the violence perpetrated against a woman and to trivialise her death.
That was why I was one of the more than 125,000 who registered their dislike on the change.org petition - though I suggest that your thanks should be redirected to the other 124,999+.
Slight tangent - When I was 15 I was one of six classmates who, at 0900 one day, was given a tip for a horse-race that afternoon. The tipster's catchphrase was "I gotta horse". There was no possibility of us placing bets but we did buy a copy of the "Eenystanit" and guess what. Not only had the named nag won, it had done so at 20-1. I took that to mean that the horse would have won even had it broken all four legs at the starting gate and have, to this day, never bet on a horse-race.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
Actually, I think the real problem was that Paddy Power was advertising the fact it was taking bets on the trial. If it had simply taken them, without any fuss, no-one would have known. Not that this would have made it any better, but there would not have been the public outrage.
Betting on a trial as a general principle? Well, I am sure that you could get good odds for Rebekah Brooks being acquitted, and I don't think that would be considered as wrong. The problem, as I see it, is the trivialising of this particular trial details, and the real danger that Reeva Skeencamp will be forgotten in the midst of a celebrity trial. What is more, the fact that she was killed will be lost in the celebrity rush.
So I think the problem is the fact that this is a celeb trial, with all of the celeb stuff around it, and the gambling on the outcome is seen as one of the more tasteless aspects of this. Lets not forget that an innocent woman was killed, and that is what the trial should be about.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I have to say I've never properly gambled in a betting shop. Not for any particular moral reason, I've just never seen the pleasure in it.
I was partr of a lottery syndicate at work for a few years, where we all threw in a few quid a month. We saved up any winnings and divied them up at Christmas. It was more a savings club with a negative interest in that regard!
But that was more "fire and forget". The payment was made via standing order and to be honest I forgot about it most months. I left the company and that was the end of that.
I buy a euromillions ticket now and again when it goes up to silly money levels (100 Million quid or so), just because you never know and I really would like to be a multi-millionaire.
But none of the above give (or gave) me any kind of pleasure really. I forgot about the lottery syndicate and relied on others to check the numbers, and even with the euromillions I often forget to check the results for a couple of weeks.
But I don't have any problems with people who do gamble and find pleasure in it. Just as I don't have any problems with people who like a drink and find pleasure in it.
Abuse is different though and after finding out I'm not very good at drinking I stopped. That doesn't mean I begrudge it anyone else though. So the gambling industry is no more at fault than the drinks industry for abusers, or indeed any industry whose products are designed for people to enjoy in moderation.
Abusers of anything need to recognise that they own the problem, and they are responsible for fixing it. By all means get help and rely on it, but trying to abdicate responsibility is not going to help you. If you drink too much, it is your problem to fix, if you gamble it is your problem to fix. Same with any addiction.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I buy a euromillions ticket now and again when it goes up to silly money levels (100 Million quid or so), just because you never know and I really would like to be a multi-millionaire.
If you're interested, tonights jackpot is £80,000,000.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
... Well, I am sure that you could get good odds for Rebekah Brooks being acquitted, ...
Possibly not, as that's probably contempt of court. However, contempt is beyond the reach of the judges if it's outside their own jurisdiction. Hence the freedom to report here before trial on the Pistorius case - and also to make television programmes speculating on the guilt of Shrien Dewani - in ways which, rightly, would be way beyond the pale with a case pending in our own courts.
If you want to bet on the outcome of the Rebekah Brooks trial, best try Dublin! But go there. Don't do it on line as even if the bookmaker is out of reach, you could be in contempt. You might even be if you come back before the decision.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
I guess the start would be hoping for bad things (for 'unrelated' reasons) feeling generally a bit off.
Out of interest, how do you feel about this?
Assuming that's the death list thread, that's what made me realise I couldn't place what I felt in words.
I've never taking part (either here or at work) because I know I would be thinking thoughts I don't want to (and already do too much). But I can well believe that other people are better than me, especially if that's there testimony.
I'm not sure if that should change when Ladbrooks do it for cash. I certainly feel it does, maybe it's that their actions outweigh their words, maybe I consider it institutionalised, I don't know.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I find the circus death game crass and tasteless but that just means I wouldn't take part in it. I've never considered that it ought to be banned, as other people think it's harmless fun.
I'm not the sort of person who thinks things should be banned because I find them offensive, so I'm sure the sort of things Pete173 and HughWillRidMe mentioned are not what's behind my disquiet. My feelings are about something specific to the legal process. Maybe to do with the fact that it could be corrupted as Eliab referred to. Although I don't think it's at all likely that betting could affect the results of a big trial.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
