So say it was 5 kids. All under 12. All minding their business being children, and the drunk guy ran over all 5 of them. 1,825 days in jail, with him being able to go out and live his life after half a decade is a fair punishment for stealing 5 innocent lives who did nothing wrong because he knowingly got in his car and tried to drive home drunk?
What if it was 10 kids? Still 5 years?
5 years for killing two children lol. Haven't people gotten more time in prison for embezzlement? Haven't rapists gotten more time in prison? Or child molesters?
Also wait don't we take the magnitude of the crime into account for punishment on a variety of things? Or will I get the same punishment for stealing a candy bar as I would for stealing a car?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think it was wrong, I think the father should serve years of jail time, I also think the driver should have faced some jail time, but definitely not life in prison.
Why not life in prison?
If you kill a person while driving drunk its murder.
Also can someone explain to me why in this country the second a person gets even one DUI we don't force them to install a breathalizer machine in their car? One of those things that you breathe into and if you fail the test you can't start your car.
In fact, why hasn't this become a standard safety feature in all cars?
Originally posted by Bardock42Its not a mistake, he chose to drive drunk, he stole poor innocent lives.
Yes, I think a very unfortunate mistake, an awful decisions n that lead to the death to people like that deserves exactly 5 years in jail. Coincidentally that's also about the time I think the father deserves.Tbh, I think the people who think that a man who retrieved a gun and then shot a young man dead should get off scot free are the ones with a messed up sense of justice.
What if it was your children he killed?
You'd see things differently then.
You don't try to see it from the point of view of a father, you try to see it from the point of view of a bystander.
I'd kill the man with my bare hands and plead guilty with no regrets.
Originally posted by Surtur
Also can someone explain to me why in this country the second a person gets even one DUI we don't force them to install a breathalizer machine in their car? One of those things that you breathe into and if you fail the test you can't start your car.In fact, why hasn't this become a standard safety feature in all cars?
Respect, if you thought of this idea yourself, and there's not actually such a thing on the market. It's a good idea even if you didn't come up with this first, but I'm seriously genuinely impressed if you did, for I've not yet seen ANYONE propose a more theoretically workable solution than this.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Tbh, I think the people who think that a man who retrieved a gun and then shot a young man dead should get off scot free are the ones with a messed up sense of justice.
That's not a kosher perspective. Justice was served: the drunk driver was killed. Actually, he couldn't be killed twice. So justice was not truly served and they aren't even.
You have to be careful with justice. It ends up at the Laws of Hammurabi.
What you're asking for is actually lenient justice. You're asking that justice not be cold-served and that mercy be granted via an appeal to human civility (admirable, imo: you should be applauded for your perspective because it is less apey and more civil).
And Bardock42 was not joking.
On one hand, I suggest that we no longer have a "justice" system and, instead, have a "rehabilitation and reintegration" system. Meaning, no one is put behind bars to serve justice. They are put behind bars to rehab them and reintegrate them back into society so they can be productive again.