23 Dec 10
Originally posted by dryhumpYou can't JUST look at the result. You have to look at how culpable to actions were as well. Yes, the guy is guilty here. But guilty of what? The same degree as an intentional murderer? I don't think so.
That's true, however 15 yrs for ending 3 lives seems awfully lenient to me.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by dryhumpI think it's a lot worse to intentionally kill someone than to unintentionally (but due to acting stupidly) kill three. But usually murderers don't get life sentences.
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.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI do too, which is why I recommended 2nd degree rather than 1st degree murder.
I think it's a lot worse to intentionally kill someone than to unintentionally (but due to acting stupidly) kill three. But usually murderers don't get life sentences.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by dryhumpWhat do civil damages have to do with the criminal charges. Of course he had to pay for the damages he caused. Nobody's arguing that. The issue is how much jail time he should get.
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.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Let's look at how culpable he is then. First he got drunk and then drove his car. I can only assume (you're article didn't say) that he was driving in a city because they don't usually put stoplights on interstates. That means he was exceeding the legal speed limit also (probably by at least 20 miles an hour). Then, after hitting the car, he didn't stop and call for help, he drove off leaving them to their fate. Now you say 51 yrs is too much time for him to serve? There wasn't a person in that car over 25 yrs old. Each one of them may have lived another 51 years if it wasn't for this.
You can't JUST look at the result. You have to look at how culpable to actions were as well. Yes, the guy is guilty here. But guilty of what? The same degree as an intentional murderer? I don't think so.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76Taking this to it's logical conclusion, yes. However, I'm quite aware that this is practically not feasible (what punishment is appropriate, you'd also have to take into account that one kind of driving drunk is far more unlikely to kill someone than another, etc) and it is politically impossible.
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?
For dryphump, of course, this does not extend to paying damages. There is no reason that the victims should get less compensation per person just because the driver made multiple victims.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76If he is responsible for property damage, isn't he equally responsible for injury or death as a result of his actions?
What do civil damages have to do with the criminal charges. Of course he had to pay for the damages he caused. Nobody's arguing that. The issue is how much jail time he should get.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by BartsSomeone should be punished the same whether they killed someone or not? Causing a death shouldn't be considered a crime?
Taking this to it's logical conclusion, yes. However, I'm quite aware that this is practically not feasible (what punishment is appropriate, you'd also have to take into account that one kind of driving drunk is far more unlikely to kill someone than another, etc) and it is politically impossible.
For dryphump, of course, this does not extend to paying dam ...[text shortened]... ictims should get less compensation per person just because the driver made multiple victims.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by dryhumpAs to your first question, I don't really see a logical reason to judge them differently. If 2 persons do the exact same thing that has a 50/50 chance of killing someone, why would we judge them differently if one actually kills someone and the other doesn't ? Can you give me a good reason to judge them differently ? Just the different outcome isn't a good reason for me, because that is outside of their control.
Someone should be punished the same whether they killed someone or not? Causing a death shouldn't be considered a crime?
As to your second question, I'd say that something that has a chance of leading to death (or has the intent to cause death) should be a crime, no matter the outcome.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by BartsYou're yanking my chain, right? Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who drives drunk should be prosecuted as if they had killed someone regardless of whether they did or not?
As to your first question, I don't really see a logical reason to judge them differently. If 2 persons do the exact same thing that has a 50/50 chance of killing someone, why would we judge them differently if one actually kills someone and the other doesn't ? Can you give me a good reason to judge them differently ? Just the different outcome isn't a good rea ...[text shortened]... eading to death (or has the intent to cause death) should be a crime, no matter the outcome.
23 Dec 10
Originally posted by dryhumpThat would be why I said earlier that it's practically impossible.
You're yanking my chain, right? Are you seriously suggesting that everyone who drives drunk should be prosecuted as if they had killed someone regardless of whether they did or not?
24 Dec 10
Originally posted by sh76I'm sure if your children were without the love and comfort of their mother for the rest of their lives as a result of some ass-wipe three-time offender who decided it was okay to get crap-faced drunk, drive at excessive speeds and blow through red lights as he plowed into your wife's car--- thereby killing her--- you would comfort yourself and your children with the knowledge that said ass-wipe would emerge 15 years hence from the cocoon-like warmth of the nurturing prison system a beautiful, life-affirming human being.
In your mind, perhaps. But not in the eyes of the law (or, for that matter, in my mind).
Sorry: I value life a hell of a lot more than you do, I guess.