Originally posted by Robtard
Probably due to the fact that a chemical (a foreign agent) is making them confess and there could be grounds that the confession is therefore not their own.Like torture, you torture someone long/hard enough; they'll confess to anything you ask of them.
Shakespeare said something like that. Something like a man racked with confess to anything.
The actual quote is MUCH more elegant. lol
Originally posted by dadudemon
50% correct.There's voluntary and involuntary.
IMO, they should all be charged with first degree murder and serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years in a feral pen.
You're basically advocating a zero tolerance policy. Those differentiations exist for a reason. It might be possible to equate voluntary manslaughter with second degree murder but it's very different from first degree murder.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You're basically advocating a zero tolerance policy.
What was your first clue?
😛
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Those differentiations exist for a reason. It might be possible to equate voluntary manslaughter with second degree murder but it's very different from first degree murder.
I guess you're failing to see my perspective on killing someone BECAUSE you were drunk. (Driving drunk, to be specific.) Of coures, this would mean that you had to prove that the drunken state was the cause...which wouldn't be hard.
SC, when you suffer the loss of a family member to a drunk driver, you might change your tune a tad.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess you're failing to see my perspective on killing someone BECAUSE you were drunk. (Driving drunk, to be specific.) Of coures, this would mean that you had to prove that the drunken state was the cause...which wouldn't be hard.SC, when you suffer the loss of a family member to a drunk driver, you might change your tune a tad.
If anything that would just make less objective.
A person who is willing to place someone in danger and a person who is willing to deliberately try to kill someone are not the same. Insisting that they somehow are is simply ridiculous.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If anything that would just make less objective.A person who is willing to place someone in danger and a person who is willing to deliberately try to kill someone are not the same. Insisting that they somehow are is simply ridiculous.
Again, you're missing the point. That's not what I'm arguing or even pushing.
I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it shouldn't be the same. One person is clearly more dangerous than the other.
No. It should be the same.
😐
They can prevent the death/s. They didn't want to commit the murder (yes, it is a form of murder), yet, they still did it. I'm sure people would try a tad harder to NOT drive drunk if there were stiffer penalties for it.
And, no, the time served is not the same. The charge is.
Originally posted by dadudemon
They can prevent the death/s. They didn't want to commit the murder (yes, it is a form of murder), yet, they still did it. I'm sure people would try a tad harder to NOT drive drunk if there were stiffer penalties for it.
I thought you were a libertarian.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, no, the time served is not the same. The charge is.
😕
Originally posted by dadudemon
50% correct.There's voluntary and involuntary.
IMO, they should all be charged with first degree murder and serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years in a feral pen.
How about doing something constructive. 3,000 hours of community service specific to hard labor (service which burns at least 700 calories per hour). This will make them give something back to the community and physically clean them up from their physical addiction.
Follow this up with 5 supervised sessions where he or she is dosed with Mescaline and have to endure the torment of their guilt and inner demons followed by several hours of violent vomiting. This will make them understand the severity of the crime, change their ways, and destroy any psychological addiction to alcohol.
What you will get in the end is service to a community and a truly physically and psychologically changed person who has been punished by the state and by himself and is not prone to repeat his crimes.
This is the treatment I also propose for all non-violent drug offenses and as a great way to depopulate the prison population and get a lot of social services and health adults in return while passing along massive savings to tax payers, their money which can then be used for benefits and infrastructure.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought you were a libertarian.
Only slightly.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
😕
Charge is first degree murder. Sentence is 7 years.
I don't know of any states that a conviction for first degree murder results in only 7 years time served.
This is why I said the charge should be the same but the penalty doesn't have to be the same.
Capisce?
And, guess what? I've never lost a family member to a drunk driver. 😄
Originally posted by dadudemon
Charge is first degree murder. Sentence is 7 years.
But first degree murder is defined as something totally different (unless you think most drunks get into the car with the intent of killing someone). You could increase the penalty for the crime but you simply cannot charge them with first degree murder without messing up the whole system.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
How about doing something constructive. 3,000 hours of community service specific to hard labor (service which burns at least 700 calories per hour). This will make them give something back to the community and physically clean them up from their physical addiction.
They can do that in prison with the other criminals.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Follow this up with 5 supervised sessions where he or she is dosed with Mescaline and have to endure the torment of their guilt and inner demons followed by several hours of violent vomiting. This will make them understand the severity of the crime, change their ways, and destroy any psychological addiction to alcohol.
Cool. Is this part of the rehab to prevent them for drinking and driving?
From what I can tell, someone who drinks and drives, and gets into a wreck, is likely to drink and drive again. I think this is fact...I'll have to look up some data on it, but I'm fairly sure they will repeat offend.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
What you will get in the end is service to a community and a truly physically and psychologically changed person who has been punished by the state and by himself and is not prone to repeat his crimes.
I agree. That's how all crime should be delt with. If you can't rehab them after a so many years, end their life. 😐
Originally posted by Darth Jello
This is the treatment I also propose for all non-violent drug offenses and as a great way to depopulate the prison population and get a lot of social services and health adults in return while passing along massive savings to tax payers, their money which can then be used for benefits and infrastructure.
Sure.
I would like to get rid of prison time for people who have drug offenses. I would also like to legalize many drugs. Shrooms, weed, steroids, and similar drugs that are "less harmful". More harmful drugs, like meth heroine, etc. Should still be illegal due to how harmful they are, but even then, NO prison or jail time for it.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But first degree murder is defined as something totally different (unless you think most drunks get into the car with the intent of killing someone).
"Again, you're missing the point. That's not what I'm arguing or even pushing.
I want the penalty to be the same, regardless of how you'd like to define it."
It = the type of murder comitted.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You could increase the penalty for the crime but you simply cannot charge them with first degree murder without messing up the whole system.
Actually, you're incorrect. It would be a federal change and it would be very minor and very easy to accomplish. You do know that federal crimes are redefined and penalties for them changed, very frequently, don't you?
And the point of changing the charge is to tarnish that person's record. I thought that much would be obvious.
And, what inimalist said.
I still have to research the data on it, but drunk drivers are chronic offenders the majority of the time.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Frankly anyone that good deserves to be set free.
In January 1918 he was imprisoned a second time, this time after killing one of his relatives, Will Stafford, in a fight over a woman. In 1918 he was incarcerated in Sugar Land, Texas, where he probably learned the song "Midnight Special".[4] In 1925 he was pardoned and released, having served seven years, or virtually all of the minimum of his seven-to-35-year sentence, after writing a song appealing to Governor Pat Morris Neff for his freedom. Lead Belly had swayed Governor Neff by appealing to his strong religious values. That, in combination with good behavior (including entertaining by playing for the guards and fellow prisoners), was Lead Belly's ticket out of jail. It was quite a testament to his persuasive powers, as Neff had run for governor on a pledge not to issue pardons (pardon by the governor was at that time the only recourse for prisoners, since in most Southern prisons there was no provision for parole).
sang his way out of prison.... 😐