- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 13,350
- Reaction score
- 6,591
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I think in some cases you can certainly make 3rd degree murder claims. My point is that I do not feel this is 1st degree murder as there is no intent to cause harm. I think justice isn't justice for the feelings of family members, but rather a blind sense of crime and punishment weighed out. And in that light, I don't see how one can push 1st degree, premeditated murder for DUI.
We will just have to disagree here. We are both going to continuously say the same things.
To some level yes. I've argued and thought about this topic quite a bit because I feel that DUI punishment is out of sync with level of crime. Certainly when property or personal damage come into play, there are more charges to be brought forth and harsher punishment. But often times I think we let ourselves emotionalize this topic to such a degree as we forget proper role of crime and punishment. Since DUI that leads to death rarely has intent to harm associated with it and lack of premeditation; I just don't see this as a "life in prison" sort of thing. And if we hold that standard to DUI, we would have to hold the same standard to all cases of reckless behavior that led to death in car accidents. And on some level I think life in prison then is greater punishment than crime committed.
And on some level I think life in prison then is greater punishment than crime committed.
Not all reckless behavior is illegal. One standard for murder, whether it be murder 1 or 2, is death caused while committing a crime. As for the punishment, I believe in eye for an eye. I dont discount the deads life. Or the lives of the family members of the person killed. You say
A person recklessly takes another persons life while committing a crime. Why should they be allowed to continue their life free among society? They didnt give their victim that much
There's certainly jail time and punishment involved. I'm not saying they should be let off the hook or even get only 3 months in jail. But on some level it is an accident as there is no premeditation or intent to harm.
I'm very much in the camp of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind".
Accidental deaths caused while committing a crime are treated as murder under any other circumstance. Why should murdering someone while drunk make it suddenly better?
If I were to suddenly discharge my firearm in a public park shooting at squirrels and hit a little kid in the head what charges do you believe I should face?
Why? An eye for an eye would not leave the whole world blind. Just the criminals.
When someone does something wrong is it only tolerable and 'right' to punish them in private: and not let anyone know?
How is this NOT considered "cruel and unusual"???
So for those who are still focused on how public-shame isn't an acceptable element in punishment just where does criticism and scrutiny within a forum thread online fall? Is that public shaming? Or is it not public shame for us to talk about him because we won't recognize him immediately on the street in relation to his crime we've heard about on TV and in the media.
When someone does something wrong is it only tolerable and 'right' to punish them in private: and not let anyone know?
IMO, he got off light. 90 days in jail and a few Saturdays of public humiliation are nothing in comparison to willfully and knowingly making himself unsafe and causing the death of another.
Reckless Endangerment, Reckless Discharge of Weapon (I don't know the actual name), Manslaughter.
Because at some point it starts to involve other people and if we aggressively pursue these methods, there are going to be a non-zero number of innocent people caught in the system. It's one of my arguments against the death penalty. Proper enforcement and punishment is where we should shoot for, revenge type punishment is something we should get away from, I think anyway.
Wtf. He only got 90 days in jail?
What differentiates murder 2 and manslaughter to you?
If a person maliciously murders somoene, in cold blood, not accidentally, not self defense, why should they be allowed to continue to live their life?
IMO, intent to harm
Enacting the death penalty has several negative consequences including the consumption of innocent life in the process.
So let's get this straight.
A young man had his life snuffed out by a drunk driver. The driver now spends about 90 days in jail, and we're complaining the killer has to wear a sign around his neck?
Screw that. Give this pos 10 years in jail, since a sign isn't good enough.
Knowingly taking part in an act that you know can result in harming and killing others constitutes harm. You may not think that First Degree murder is appliciable (which is what I'd like to see) but then why not Second Degree? If you think that intent to do harm and causing a death is what is needed?
This doenst quite answer my question. If you murder someone, in first degree, why should you be allowed to have a life? You talk about the consumption of innocent life, then why do you justify innocent lives being taken in other circumstances?
But distracted driving is as dangerous as drunk driving, and these actions are known to cause similar if not greater distraction than driving while drunk. A known activity leading to death, yes? I believe that was your standard. Driving while too tired, to changing the radio station instead of paying attention, to texting, to talking on your cell phone, etc. These are all activities KNOWN to cause distraction, and that was your qualifier, yes?
How is it not? It's not because you're confusing correlation with causation. Drunk driving doesn't cause someone to die. The reckless behavior and distracted driving which it does cause leads to one being a larger threat on the road than otherwise. It leads to an increase in the probability of accident. But if someone is drunk and gets in a car, someone else doesn't up and die, which would be causation then.
No, distracted driving is different than impaired driving. When they make radio's, dvd players..etc. illegal we'll abide. I think cell phones should be illegal unless paired with your radio or a bluetooth and texting should be illegal in all states.
Why not complain the guy wasn't in jail long enough? (which a lot of us complaining about the sign were also doing) Or complain that since some bureaucrat in the area's government decided to let this guy go after only 90 days (most likely due to overcrowding), we should at least try to get some useful community benefit from this guy. Not just give him a ridiculous punishment that doesn't really help anyone and, in this specific situation, likely won't even help to deter future similar crimes of this nature.
The judge most likely had it in his ability to give this guy hundreds of hours of community service (at least as many hours as he is standing on the corner) which would have provided much more benefit to the community.
I can understand that, but I see it a little differently. The sign itself I have no problem with him wearing. He killed a young man and I see not problem wearing a sign; maybe that in itself will sober him up to the realities of life. Did you know that people were treated much worse hundreds of years ago for stealing and being a general nuisance? If I could have things my way, a simple sign would be the least of his worries. I'll agree should have recieved hundreds of hours of community service, and that someone higher up made a mistake. As far as the killer's sensibilities, well, imagine the sensibilities of the mother and father whose young son is now dead. Who's going to care about their feelings? I will, by not caring about the feelings of the killer.
Enacting the death penalty has several negative consequences including the consumption of innocent life in the process.
The innocent life lost was the one the drunk killed. The drunk is nowhere near innocent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?