Originally posted by dryhump
What difference does remorse make? Of course he didn't mean to kill anybody, but a car is a lethal weapon. I don't think he should be killed, but 3 people died and his remorse doesn't change that. Absolutely he is worse than the guy in your example, he killed people.

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not ...[text shortened]... ing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

but a car is a lethal weapon-dryhump

Incorrect. A car is a piece of machinery used for transportation.

Originally posted by utherpendragon

but a car is a lethal weapon-dryhump

Incorrect. A car is a piece of machinery used for transportation.

I'm sorry, how about A car is a piece of machinery used for transportation and a lethal weapon. Just because it isn't designed as a weapon doesn't mean it isn't one. For more on this subject see the candlestick holder, the pipe wrench and the lead pipe.

Originally posted by sh76
He had plenty of remorse. Read the articles. He's confessed to his crimes and begs the families for forgiveness, etc. etc.

Come on, folks, shouldn't intent matter? Is he really worse than the guy who points a gun at his friend, pulls the trigger and misses?

51 years??? 15 makes sense; 51 is overkill. Plus, his sentence is actually 51-life, which means he' ...[text shortened]... lock this guy up essentially for life? Is he really among the worst of irredeemable people?

I have to agree with you here, doing the exact same thing he did he could have killed one person and gotten 15 years, but he had bad luck and killed 3 which netted him 51 years. Apparently having bad luck will net you 36 extra years of prison and I don't think I can see the justice in that.

Originally posted by dryhump
Absolutely he is worse than the guy in your example, he killed people.

Since when is killing someone the only yardstick for how bad a person someone is ? A person who makes the decision to drive drunk and makes it home without an accident is just as bad as someone who makes the same decision but doesn't have the good fortune of not running people over. The only difference between the two is the amount of luck they have and that is not something by which I measure the worth of people.

Originally posted by Barts
Since when is killing someone the only yardstick for how bad a person someone is ? A person who makes the decision to drive drunk and makes it home without an accident is just as bad as someone who makes the same decision but doesn't have the good fortune of not running people over. The only difference between the two is the amount of luck they have and that is not something by which I measure the worth of people.

So, by that logic, should a person who drives drunk and kills someone get the same sentence as someone who drives drunk and gets pulled over by police before he could inflict any damage?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
51 years seems an awful lot for someone who, while acting very irresponsibly, never intended to kill anyone. And considering merely getting caught drunk driving does not result in any prison sentence (at least here it doesn't) it seems that there is a very large discrepancy here and basically this guy is spending his life in prison while someone who is not so unlucky but is acting equally irresponsibly walks free.

This.

Originally posted by utherpendragon

However, to the person who is found to be legally intoxicated and the cause of death in an accident scene: put them to death.-FreakyKBH

Interesting.
A person who has a .08 bac is legally drunk to drive in most states. If involved in a accident they automatically are at fault weather they "caused" it or not because they should not h ...[text shortened]... the [b]accident!
Your answer is the death penalty for an accident?
Interesting.[/b]

I should have been more precise. A person whose drunkenness is found to be the cause of the accident ought to suffer that fate. That ought to narrow it down.

Originally posted by sh76
As a matter of American law, it is unconstitutional to apply the death penalty for anything but intentional murder. Whether you like the death penalty or not (and I don't), I think it's unconscionable to execute someone for an accident, however depraved.

Wanton disregard for others' safety is (in my mind) equated with willful intention. I don't consider a gal who drinks so much that she can't tell which side of the road she's driving on; so drunk she's oblivious to her excessive speed; so impaired she doesn't care about the approaching lights of another vehicle--- as someone who is having an unfortunate accident.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I should have been more precise. A person whose drunkenness is found to be the cause of the accident ought to suffer that fate. That ought to narrow it down.

The old "eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" thing.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wanton disregard for others' safety is (in my mind) equated with willful intention. I don't consider a gal who drinks so much that she can't tell which side of the road she's driving on; so drunk she's oblivious to her excessive speed; so impaired she doesn't care about the approaching lights of another vehicle--- as someone who is having an unfortunate accident.

being .08 bac which is legally drunk doesnt fit into this scenario of yours. this sounds like someone who is about 3x the legal limit.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
The old "eye for an eye tooth for a tooth" thing.

Luckily, most societies have long departed from a view of the law as simply retributive justice.

Some people still live in the dark ages, it seems.

Originally posted by Barts
Since when is killing someone the only yardstick for how bad a person someone is ? A person who makes the decision to drive drunk and makes it home without an accident is just as bad as someone who makes the same decision but doesn't have the good fortune of not running people over. The only difference between the two is the amount of luck they have and that is not something by which I measure the worth of people.

Maybe I misread the post that I responded to, but I was not judging his character, only his actions which are worse because they resulted in the deaths of three people. Why so squeamish? If he had crashed through a storefront and done 40,000 worth of property damage would you find it abhorrent that he (or his insurance) be forced to pay for the damage? Yet somehow, when he runs down 3 people and injures a 4th it's time for leniency.

Originally posted by dryhump
Maybe I misread the post that I responded to, but I was not judging his character, only his actions which are worse because they resulted in the deaths of three people. Why so squeamish? If he had crashed through a storefront and done 40,000 worth of property damage would you find it abhorrent that he (or his insurance) be forced to pay for the damage? Yet somehow, when he runs down 3 people and injures a 4th it's time for leniency.

Leniency <------------------------------------------------------------------> 51 years

Lots of stuff in between.

Originally posted by Palynka
Leniency <------------------------------------------------------------------> 51 years

Lots of stuff in between.

That's true, however 15 yrs for ending 3 lives seems awfully lenient to me.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Wanton disregard for others' safety is (in my mind) equated with willful intention.

In your mind, perhaps. But not in the eyes of the law (or, for that matter, in my mind).