Originally posted by dadudemonAnd when that doesn't work? Because in many cases it wouldn't.
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.
I don't see how in an argument where one side says that both people having killed others should serve prison time (me) and the other side says that a man who executed another human being should get off free and perhaps even be praised, I am the callous one.
It is also worrying that it seems that to many here the fact that it was children that died, seems essential. It makes me uncomfortable to think that if he had killed two middle aged men with his drunk driving many of you might view this as a much lesser crime.
At any rate, drunk drivers do somewhat endanger those around them, but the reaction that people have when an accident happens is out of proportion. For one, we don't even know if this accident could have been prevented if the man was sober, perhaps he did all he could and yet the accident still happens. Sober people are in fatal accidents all the time. Further for the people who call this murder, that's just ridiculous hyperbole, and our justice system treats it that way. If the rhetoric of some of you was correct, than DUIs would not be punished with losing your license for 2 months, they'd be punished as attemtped murder, which is obviously absurd.
I will reply to posts directly addressed to me in a separate post.
Originally posted by KingD19
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?
Yeah, still five years.
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Lol.Why do you put so little value on lives?
Originally posted by Surtur
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?
These embezzlers, rapists, child molesters don't accidentally embezzle, rape and child molest. That is a very important part in considering sentencing.
Of course the magnitude gets taken into account, but not as a straight multiplier. If you get one year for stealing a snickers bar, you do not get 100 years for stealing a box of 100 snickers bars.
Originally posted by riv6672
This question is for posters in general, not Bardovk in particular, as i know he's very much a bleeding heart.Why not life in prison?
If you kill a person while driving drunk its murder.
It's not, it's vehicular manslaugher.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why?
Because rehabilitation and punishment of criminal energy are aspects of criminal sentencing and they do not scale linearly with the damage of the crime.
Originally posted by Jmanghan
Its not a mistake, he chose to drive drunk, he stole poor innocent lives.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.
If it was my children I may feel differently, but the criminal justice system should not take my emotionally clouded view as basis for it's work.
Originally posted by Jmanghan
I hope you get hit by a bus, you insignificant little ****.
Originally posted by Jmanghan
Lets just all find out where he lives and beat the shit out of him, please?He gets away with too much.
That seems like an overreaction
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
Bardock probably thinks guys like Manson and Bundy only needed 5 years in prison
Taking that logic to its conclusion. Do you feel that what Manson and Bundy did is only as bad as vehicular manslaughter?
Originally posted by Bardock42Why that would humor me? I never said anything similar
I do not equate prison terms with the value put on human life. If I were to humor you though, I would question why people who want the father to get off free put so little value on human life (infinitely little).
That doesn't change the fact that you want to encourage irresponsibility by giving derisory sentences.
These embezzlers, rapists, child molesters don't accidentally embezzle, rape and child molest. That is a very important part in considering sentencing.These drunk drivers don't accidentally get drunk and put themselves behind the steering wheel. That is a very important part in considering sentencing.
Of course the magnitude gets taken into account, but not as a straight multiplier. If you get one year for stealing a snickers bar, you do not get 100 years for stealing a box of 100 snickers bars.Magnitude still plays a big role, specially when deaths are involved.
Because rehabilitation and punishment of criminal energy are aspects of criminal sentencing and they do not scale linearly with the damage of the crime.That doesn't mean killing one person, two or ten is going to be the same. Common sense man.
If it was my children I may feel differently, but the criminal justice system should not take my emotionally clouded view as basis for it's work.At least there's something we can agree on in this matter.
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
And when that doesn't work? Because in many cases it wouldn't.
I agree: there would be many cases where rehab just won't work with some criminals.
But for the other extreme majority of criminals where is has been proven hundreds of thousands of times over that proper criminal rehabilitation and treatment programs actually work, let's focus on that group instead of pandering to an extreme minority just because it is uncomfortable for some people's primitive minds to give up the notion of "lock them up forever or execute them."
Before someone like you can make such a huge intellectual and civility leap in comprehension, you first must throw away any notion that the US has a proper Criminal Justice System. The name already has a problem because it is called the "Criminal Justice System." That should clearly indicate what type of system we have in the US: it is focused on getting revenge for victims and/or punishing offenders...NOT rehabilitating them.
Originally posted by Bardock42
[B]I don't see how in an argument where one side says that both people having killed others should serve prison time (me) and the other side says that a man who executed another human being should get off free and perhaps even be praised, I am the callous one.
You said give him 5 years though. When we give rapists and other criminals lengthier sentences.
It is also worrying that it seems that to many here the fact that it was children that died, seems essential. It makes me uncomfortable to think that if he had killed two middle aged men with his drunk driving many of you might view this as a much lesser crime.
I don't think people are saying if it was two adults it wouldn't be as bad. On the other hand surely you've seen this done time and time again right? The whole "kids are more important then adults" thing. You've never seen a movie where a bunch of people are in danger and they pull the cliche "women and children first" stuff? Of course due to equality women definitely shouldn't be prioritized over men when it comes to saving them.
I think with children there is the idea of a life not lived. Middle aged people would of at least gotten to experience life. Sure it's true they could of had another 20-40 years of life, but they got to experience a lot more then these children.
At any rate, drunk drivers do somewhat endanger those around them, but the reaction that people have when an accident happens is out of proportion. For one, we don't even know if this accident could have been prevented if the man was sober, perhaps he did all he could and yet the accident still happens. Sober people are in fatal accidents all the time.
What we do know is that if he never chose to get into a car while drunk that these children would still be alive. So his choice to be a dipshit and drink and drive cost two people their lives. He didn't accidentally get into his car and turn it on while drunk..it was a choice. Also alcohol tends to slow your reflexes, etc. so while we can't say for sure if he was sober the accident wouldn't of happened.. If he wasn't drunk he would of been more alert to what he was doing and his own surroundings.
You are also correct people have fatal accidents while stone cold sober..so taking that into account it just makes it even worse this guy decided to get behind the wheel of a car. You're more likely to get into an accident if you're driving drunk.
Further for the people who call this murder, that's just ridiculous hyperbole, and our justice system treats it that way. If the rhetoric of some of you was correct, than DUIs would not be punished with losing your license for 2 months, they'd be punished as attemtped murder, which is obviously absurd.
I think if you get a DUI you should have your license permanently taken away. Either that or you are forced to install a breathalizer machine in your car(and the drunk driver is the one who needs to pay for it).
We have far far too many people who get multiple DUI's and still don't lose their driving privileges forever.
Originally posted by dadudemonHas it really been proven 'hundreds of thousands of times over'?
I agree: there would be many cases where rehab just won't work with some criminals.But for the other extreme majority of criminals where is has been proven hundreds of thousands of times over that proper criminal rehabilitation and treatment programs actually work, let's focus on that group instead of pandering to an extreme minority just because it is uncomfortable for some people's primitive minds to give up the notion of "lock them up forever or execute them."
Before someone like you can make such a huge intellectual and civility leap in comprehension, you first must throw away any notion that the US has a proper Criminal Justice System. The name already has a problem because it is called the "Criminal [b]Justice
System." That should clearly indicate what type of system we have in the US: it is focused on getting revenge for victims and/or punishing offenders...NOT rehabilitating them. [/B]
Also, that 'minority' still exists, as uncomfortable that may be for minds who think there's always a right answer.
Speaking of which, you did not really answer my question.
Originally posted by Surtur
I think if you get a DUI you should have your license permanently taken away. Either that or you are forced to install a breathalizer machine in your car(and the drunk driver is the one who needs to pay for it).We have far far too many people who get multiple DUI's and still don't lose their driving privileges forever.
While I do agree that the punishment for DUI's is whacked, as I recall one fairly local case her in California of one repeat drunk driver who have five or six DUIs under his belt and still hadn't permanently lost his license. He went on to drink/drive his motorcycle yet again; ended up killing a young girl in front of her father and maimed the father (lost his leg) while they were using the crosswalk. I was called in for jury duty for his murder trial, I ended up being excused out, which I was glad for, long story short as I completely digressed from my point, he was sent to San Quentin and another inmate murdered him not long after.
Anyhow, the point: Permanently losing your license for the first DUI is way too strict, especially for people who were just at the legal limit. IMO, the DUI punishment should scale with how drunk you were; if someone is driving at 4x the legal limit, their punishment should be more severe than someone who is just over.
All I'm gonna say is that if a drunk driver killed my daughter, none of you would ever see or hear from me again because I'd personally kill the piece of shit.
That's not anger, overstating, or exaggerating.
I. Would. Kill. Him.
If my only child died, then I seriously doubt that I'd have much left to lose or to live for. At least in prison I'd get three hots and a cot.
Originally posted by ImpedimentFree sex too.
All I'm gonna say is that if a drunk driver killed my daughter, none of you would ever see or hear from me again because I'd personally kill the piece of shit.That's not anger, overstating, or exaggerating.
I. Would. Kill. Him.
If my only child died, then I seriously doubt that I'd have much left to lose or to live for. At least in prison I'd get three hots and a cot.
Originally posted by riv6672
^^^nice. Very non chirpy.