Consecutive sentences?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'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 childr ...[text shortened]... life-affirming human being.

Sorry: I value life a hell of a lot more than you do, I guess.

No, you value vengeance far more than he (and I) do. And hate the human race more than most.

Originally posted by sh76
Historically in the US, killing someone while driving drunk has generally been considered involuntary manslaughter, not second degree murder.

That "history" is just that. Since the 1960s there have been cases where drunk driving were treated as murder and the process greatly accelerated after People v. Watson a 1983 California Supreme Court case which validated that practice.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Two swings, two misses. The measure of love is response-based--- decidedly not reactionary-based. The justice system is a loose approximation of a more concrete form of reality: God is aggrieved; what does God want?

Trying to ascertain the mental state of fictional Super Beings is always rather difficult; I still can't figure out what Dr. Manhattan was thinking.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That's a pretty odd brand of justice. So if for e.g. an employer is not following safety regulations, he should not be fined, but if some deadly accident occurs because regulations were not followed, he should be tried for murder?

Death as a result of wanton disregard for the lives of others should face the most severe forms of punishment available. Non-injury, non-loss penalties are simply fodder for the dregs of the legal system: the sub-strata class of attorneys.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, you value vengeance far more than he (and I) do. And hate the human race more than most.

You're confusing vengeance with repayment. Emotion need not be part of the transaction.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Trying to ascertain the mental state of fictional Super Beings is always rather difficult; I still can't figure out what Dr. Manhattan was thinking.

And yet you've seemingly done the "rather difficult." Apparently, you have stumbled upon the best perspective, relative to the subject matter at hand. Pray tell, how did you do such a thing?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That's an excellent idea, so employers would have to choose between not being competitive, or risking the lives of their employees and a prison sentence. Wajomastan would be a lovely place, though you'd might have to fence it to stop people from fleeing.

Isn't it amazing that a poster on these forums has become so famous (or should I say notorious) that he has actually had a country named after him? I think I'd like to have a country named after me too. Teinosukestan? Teinosukerania? Teinosukebaijan? Teinosukenesia? Teinoland? Teinmark?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And yet you've seemingly done the "rather difficult." Apparently, you have stumbled upon the best perspective, relative to the subject matter at hand. Pray tell, how did you do such a thing?

Through apparently invincible self-confidence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And yet you've seemingly done the "rather difficult." Apparently, you have stumbled upon the best perspective, relative to the subject matter at hand. Pray tell, how did you do such a thing?

I have no idea what this post is referring to. I have used the reason Nature has endowed to me supplemented by my own efforts to reach what I believe to be the proper perspective, but I have not tried to ascertain what "God wants" as the existence of an anthropomorphic Supreme Being of the sort you believe in is nonsensical.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're confusing vengeance with repayment. Emotion need not be part of the transaction.

Sorry, you can't write a post so obviously an Appeal to Emotion as your prior one was and then pretend emotions have no part of your beliefs.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Death as a result of wanton disregard for the lives of others should face the most severe forms of punishment available. Non-injury, non-loss penalties are simply fodder for the dregs of the legal system: the sub-strata class of attorneys.

So people can have a wanton disregard for other people's live, but as long as they're lucky and not actually kill someone that's OK with you ?

Originally posted by sh76
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/news/story?id=5946234

Long story short, guy's on parole after a DUI conviction, gets stinking drunk, gets in a car, blows through a red light at 65 MPH and kills 3 people and severely injures a fourth.

Horrible guy? Sure.

Deserves to go to jail for a long time? You bet.

But I don't like the idea of giving hi ...[text shortened]... e my family member who was killed), I don't think he's as bad as an intentional murderer.

I would say yes---killing 3 makes the killer 3 times worse is than the killer of 1.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I would say yes---killing 3 makes the killer 3 times worse is than the killer of 1.

Why ? The difference between a drunk driver who kills 0, 1 or 3 persons is the amount of luck he has. Does a difference in luck make a person worse ?

Originally posted by Barts
Why ? The difference between a drunk driver who kills 0, 1 or 3 persons is the amount of luck he has. Does a difference in luck make a person worse ?

I would say so.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I would say so.

Why ? Is a person winning the lottery better than one who doesn't ?