Originally posted by ImpedimentYou're gonna get this free sex whether you want it or not, ok buddy.
Doubtful.I'm a former TDCJ correctional officer and I would have to be put into protective custody segregation for my own personal safety in case inmates realize what I once was and put a hit out on me.
Originally posted by Surtur
You said give him 5 years though. When we give rapists and other criminals lengthier sentences.
Not a good comparison. imo, killing someone while drunk driving is still considered an accidental death. Sure it's reckless and whatnot, but it's not intentional like a rape. Which I'm pretty sure has been B42's stance from the start. Intent.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Grief? That's the word you would use? Don't you think you're grossly downplaying the father's mental state?"Oh, you just watched your children be murdered by a drunk driver and had to see their bleeding, mangled, bodies? And you were just grieving your loss by murdering someone? Yeah, everyone grieves in their own way."
Doesn't compute.
More like this:
"Oh, you just watched your children be murdered by a drunk driver and had to see their bleeding, mangled, bodies? And you completely lost your shit and shot the guy who ran your children over? And you are probably suffering from PTSD, to this day, from having been through this whole thing? Yeah, that's understandable. I hope one day you can get the chance to grieve and get the help you need to get to a normal place and state of mind."
And what you suggest, expecting society to never accept retaliatory homicide, is just not reasonable. We'd have to get there through eugenics where we eliminate the violent nature and the emotional attachment nature of humans to achieve what you suggest. No, I am not kidding. It would take some serious genetic modification to get humans to stop retaliatory homicide.
I am happy to see many people sharing this view 👆
EDIT: Btw someone mentioned that "temporary insanity" is treated as a "out of jail card" nowadays.
Well, "being drunk" is definitely treated as a some kind of defense too. To the point that I’ve heard of cases that someone who was planning a crime (like burlary, for instance) had a drink or two beforehand so in case he’s busted he can pull that "I was drunk" card out of his arse as a free pass.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not a good comparison. imo, killing someone while drunk driving is still considered an accidental death. Sure it's reckless and whatnot, but it's not intentional like a rape. Which I'm pretty sure has been B42's stance from the start. Intent.
Yep intent, and the guy intentionally consumed booze and then intentionally got behind the wheel of a car. Do you deny this? Since that is all that needs to be said: nobody forced him to booze it up and nobody forced him to drive while boozed up. It was those decisions that lead to the deaths of 2 kids.
So he should still do more time then a friggin rapist. All the intent we need is the choices of getting drunk and deciding to drive. It doesn't matter if he specifically intended to run some people over, what matters is he knew the potential dangers of driving drunk and still did it anyways.
The guy wasn't from a wealthy family, so he definitely wouldn't of been able to use a bullshit defense like the "affluenza" teen did. Anyone who drives a car and went through the process of getting their license knows how deadly and dangerous it is to drive drunk. On top of that there is probably a decent chance that he experienced what a decent amount of people do when they get their license: being shown videos of horrid car wrecks caused by drunk driving.
The exact second he chose to start the ignition in his car and drive away even though he knew he was drunk..is the exact moment where this pretty much stopped being an accident. Hell he wasn't even 21 so he had no business even consuming alcohol.
One kid was 11 the other was 12. So at the very least he should get 23 years in prison..if he actually hadn't been killed. Which I'm glad he was since now he can't ever hurt anyone else.
Originally posted by Surtur
Yep intent, and the guy intentionally consumed booze and then intentionally got behind the wheel of a car. Do you deny this? Since that is all that needs to be said: nobody forced him to booze it up and nobody forced him to drive while boozed up. It was those decisions that lead to the deaths of 2 kids.So he should still do more time then a friggin rapist. All the intent we need is the choices of getting drunk and deciding to drive. It doesn't matter if he specifically intended to run some people over, what matters is he knew the potential dangers of driving drunk and still did it anyways.
The guy wasn't from a wealthy family, so he definitely wouldn't of been able to use a bullshit defense like the "affluenza" teen did. Anyone who drives a car and went through the process of getting their license knows how deadly and dangerous it is to drive drunk. On top of that there is probably a decent chance that he experienced what a decent amount of people do when they get their license: being shown videos of horrid car wrecks caused by drunk driving.
The exact second he chose to start the ignition in his car and drive away even though he knew he was drunk..is the exact moment where this pretty much stopped being an accident. Hell he wasn't even 21 so he had no business even consuming alcohol.
One kid was 11 the other was 12. So at the very least he should get 23 years in prison..if he actually hadn't been killed. Which I'm glad he was since now he can't ever hurt anyone else.
No, I pointed out earlier and I'm someone who believes in having harsher penalties for DUIs.
Again, despite his recklessness, it wasn't intentional like a rapist committing a rape.
The "affluenza" thing is an outlier and it's complete nonsense. That kid should have served jail time in juvenile hall and then upped to adult prison. It wasn't his first offense, he also stole a vehicle and robbed beer that night.
LoL, come one. So killing a 90 year old is 90 times worse than killing a 1 year old?
Yeah man totally, haven't you read these studies? People think old people don't bone, but they bone A SHITLOAD. You are taking that away from them by killing them.
But yeah, he intentionally got in the car drunk though. He knew it could cause the deaths of others and he did it anyways.
But yeah I wouldn't actually try to do the "1 year for every year the person you killed was alive". If it were up to me I'd put him in jail and throw away the key. Actually if it were up to me I'd do exactly what the father did lol.
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Speaking of which, you did not really answer my question.
I did answer: it simply doesn't work on a very very very small percentage of criminals (when proper rehabilitation programs are used).
In that case, execute them. 🙂
Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Has it really been proven 'hundreds of thousands of times over'?
Oh, so there have not been millions upon millions of reformed criminals go through incarceration with rehabilitation programs, and didn't re-offend once released and become productive members of society?
Wow, this is news to me. Guess we need to go re-arrest all of those people, right?
Originally posted by Surtur
To be fair I'm sure some of these people totally took a psychology class for one semester in college. That practically makes them a licensed therapist.
😆 😆 😆
Lost my shit. Top notch.
Originally posted by Robtard
The killing aspect is still not intentional like rape or first degree murder. Reckless sure and I'm all more stiffer penalties for DUI related deaths, but comparing a DUI-death to something like rape is faulty, when talking about intent.
It's not always about intent, it's about the consequences of your horrible decisions. Accidentally killing two kids because you're drunk is worse then purposely raping someone.
You can get 5 years or more for embezzlement too. But we both agree killing two children due to drunk driving is worse right?
Originally posted by Parmaniac
Going by this you'd be ok with his 5 years sentence if he killed 5 one year old babies?
I also said I actually wouldn't do it. I'd just toss them into prison for a long time, regardless of age.
Plus babies are evil racist liars that lack souls.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18404_6-shockingly-evil-things-babies-are-capable-of.html
I don't trust them as far as I can throw them and I know from experience I can throw a baby a pretty good distance.