|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Also i think it's really weird to judge someone who drinks and drives and creates an accident, like he actually grabbed a gun, went out and shot four people in the head. I don't think the outcome really is the important part.
What about the other thousand guys(probably way more) that drove totally shitfaced today but only got arrested for driving under the influence and luckily didn't hit anybody? That was totally out of their control, and the moment they sat down into their car they were as responsible as the teenage guy.
Also as KwarK mentioned locking him up for 20 years isn't going to help the people he killed, himself or society. There is no justice to be restored by putting a 16 year old in jail for the most part of his life, that's not going to bring the people he killed back.
|
On December 14 2013 13:42 Nyxisto wrote:
Also i think it's really weird to judge someone who drinks and drives and creates an accident, like he actually grabbed a gun, went out and shot four people in the head. I don't think the outcome really is the important part.
What about the other thousand guys(probably way more) that drove totally shitfaced today but only got arrested for driving under the influence and luckily didn't hit anybody? That was totally out of their control, and the moment they sat down into their car they were as responsible as the teenage guy.
Also as KwarK mentioned locking him up for 20 years isn't going to help the people he killed, himself or society. There is no justice to be restored by putting a 16 year old in jail for the most part of his life, that's not going to bring the people he killed back.
He didn't do first degree murder, but he recklessly made a situation in which he is solely responsible for the deaths of four individuals. He should serve some jail time.
|
On December 14 2013 13:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 11:08 Saryph wrote:Texas teen Ethan Couch gets 10 years' probation for driving drunk, killing 4(CNN) -- To the families of the victims, Ethan Couch was a killer on the road, a drunken teenage driver who caused a crash that left four people dead. To the defense, the youth is himself a victim -- of "affluenza," according to one psychologist -- the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy. To a judge, who sentenced Couch to 10 years' probation but no jail time, he's a defendant in need of treatment. The decision disappointed prosecutors and stunned victims' family members, who say they feel that Couch got off too easy. Prosecutors had asked for the maximum of 20 years behind bars. ... Source Does this set the precedent that wealth places certain people above the law? (not that I am saying they weren't before) Does this seem unreasonable to anyone else? Had a chain of events entirely outside of his control gone differently there would have been no harm here, and had events outside of the control of the person I was talking to gone differently she could be the drunk driving murderer. Yes, the wealth of his parents created an alternative not available to other people but unless we're all suddenly against money allowing people to have more expensive options I don't really see the issue with that. He got away with manslaughter, but no more so than anyone else who has made the decision to negligently risk the lives of others in a vehicle. If the experts think he can be fixed and his parents are willing to cough up the money for it so the state doesn't have to then that's a good thing. It's not like prison has a good track record for helping people deal with their emotional issues and become productive members of society.
The problem with that first line of reasoning is that you can literally apply it to every crime or every action that someone makes. If someone wasn't born poor, which is outside of their control, would they have been a thief? Its sort of a deterministic approach and while it could be argued that there is merit in that, because it would lead to a system of rehabilitation, why is this same line of thinking not applied to every criminal? If you apply that standard to drunk driving, then you would have to apply that to everything.
Most people are in fact against people having more expensive options when it comes to the criminal justice system, and for good reason.
|
On December 14 2013 13:42 Nyxisto wrote:
Also i think it's really weird to judge someone who drinks and drives and creates an accident, like he actually grabbed a gun, went out and shot four people in the head. I don't think the outcome really is the important part.
What about the other thousand guys(probably way more) that drove totally shitfaced today but only got arrested for driving under the influence and luckily didn't hit anybody? That was totally out of their control, and the moment they sat down into their car they were as responsible as the teenage guy.
Also as KwarK mentioned locking him up for 20 years isn't going to help the people he killed, himself or society. There is no justice to be restored by putting a 16 year old in jail for the most part of his life, that's not going to bring the people he killed back.
We don't charge everyone who shoots a gun in the air with murder. In our society, the consequences of one's actions matter.
|
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ?
|
On December 14 2013 15:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ?
There really isn't a reason to put him in prison... In the US punishment is often viewed as a form of societal retribution, which when you think about it is pretty senseless. Alternatively it can be used as a deterrent, but if the thought of killing four people doesn't deter people from drunk driving 20 years in prison probably won't do the trick.
I for one would love to see the US justice system change into one which focuses on rehabilitation rather than revenge.
|
On December 14 2013 14:50 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 13:25 KwarK wrote:On December 14 2013 11:08 Saryph wrote:Texas teen Ethan Couch gets 10 years' probation for driving drunk, killing 4(CNN) -- To the families of the victims, Ethan Couch was a killer on the road, a drunken teenage driver who caused a crash that left four people dead. To the defense, the youth is himself a victim -- of "affluenza," according to one psychologist -- the product of wealthy, privileged parents who never set limits for the boy. To a judge, who sentenced Couch to 10 years' probation but no jail time, he's a defendant in need of treatment. The decision disappointed prosecutors and stunned victims' family members, who say they feel that Couch got off too easy. Prosecutors had asked for the maximum of 20 years behind bars. ... Source Does this set the precedent that wealth places certain people above the law? (not that I am saying they weren't before) Does this seem unreasonable to anyone else? Had a chain of events entirely outside of his control gone differently there would have been no harm here, and had events outside of the control of the person I was talking to gone differently she could be the drunk driving murderer. Yes, the wealth of his parents created an alternative not available to other people but unless we're all suddenly against money allowing people to have more expensive options I don't really see the issue with that. He got away with manslaughter, but no more so than anyone else who has made the decision to negligently risk the lives of others in a vehicle. If the experts think he can be fixed and his parents are willing to cough up the money for it so the state doesn't have to then that's a good thing. It's not like prison has a good track record for helping people deal with their emotional issues and become productive members of society. The problem with that first line of reasoning is that you can literally apply it to every crime or every action that someone makes. If someone wasn't born poor, which is outside of their control, would they have been a thief? Its sort of a deterministic approach and while it could be argued that there is merit in that, because it would lead to a system of rehabilitation, why is this same line of thinking not applied to every criminal? If you apply that standard to drunk driving, then you would have to apply that to everything. Most people are in fact against people having more expensive options when it comes to the criminal justice system, and for good reason.
And why not apply it to everything? I think kwark would agree.
|
On December 14 2013 16:08 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 15:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ? There really isn't a reason to put him in prison... In the US punishment is often viewed as a form of societal retribution, which when you think about it is pretty senseless. Alternatively it can be used as a deterrent, but if the thought of killing four people doesn't deter people from drunk driving 20 years in prison probably won't do the trick. I for one would love to see the US justice system change into one which focuses on rehabilitation rather than revenge.
Are you serious ? And what's the reason to put someone in prison then ? It's a country where 12 years old kids go in prison for life. And now you're trying to justify letting a 16 years old go because he is rich, what in the fuck. A country where 1% of the population is in jail, with half of that convicted for robbery or drugs.
Justice is not about individuals, it's about the society. Equality before justice (even if the justice in itself is hard - dura lex, sed les you know) is a necessity to make the citizen believe the collectiv institutions are not biaised toward some people in particular.
Now you can discuss that overall justice in america is too hard (it certainly is), and put people in prison for things they are not entirely responsible of : in this case you could argue that everybody should have the same treatment as this rich kid. But this is not what anyone in here have been defending : the question is how to justify someone killing four people and not going in prison, while a lot of people in the same country go in prison for less.
Take this little rich kid story and put it in perspective with what is america for most people :
At about 12.40pm on 2 January 1996, Timothy Jackson took a jacket from the Maison Blanche department store in New Orleans, draped it over his arm, and walked out of the store without paying for it. When he was accosted by a security guard, Jackson said: “I just needed another jacket, man.”
A few months later Jackson was convicted of shoplifting and sent to Angola prison in Louisiana. That was 16 years ago. Today he is still incarcerated in Angola, and will stay there for the rest of his natural life having been condemned to die in jail. All for the theft of a jacket, worth $159.
Over 3,000 US prisoners serving life without parole for non-violent crimes (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/us-prisoners-sentences-life-non-violent-crimes).
![[image loading]](http://media.theweek.com/img/generic/us-incarceration-and-crime-rates.png)
http://theweek.com/article/index/254145/being-rich-is-now-a-get-out-of-jail-free-card
|
On December 14 2013 13:42 Nyxisto wrote:
Also i think it's really weird to judge someone who drinks and drives and creates an accident, like he actually grabbed a gun, went out and shot four people in the head. I don't think the outcome really is the important part.
What about the other thousand guys(probably way more) that drove totally shitfaced today but only got arrested for driving under the influence and luckily didn't hit anybody? That was totally out of their control, and the moment they sat down into their car they were as responsible as the teenage guy.
Also as KwarK mentioned locking him up for 20 years isn't going to help the people he killed, himself or society. There is no justice to be restored by putting a 16 year old in jail for the most part of his life, that's not going to bring the people he killed back.
I would be fine with all drink drivers getting jail time, even if they do not hit anyone. Not for 20 years ofcourse, but too many young people think that drink driving is socially acceptable and we need to send a strong message that it is not.
|
On December 14 2013 15:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ?
If more people were rehabilitated that way, then we would have a much more pleasant society. Rehabilitation has proven to be much more effective than punishment, no matter how much the person may deserve it.
However, it does not change the fact that the prison system is rigged in favor for the rich.
|
On December 14 2013 20:30 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 13:42 Nyxisto wrote:
Also i think it's really weird to judge someone who drinks and drives and creates an accident, like he actually grabbed a gun, went out and shot four people in the head. I don't think the outcome really is the important part.
What about the other thousand guys(probably way more) that drove totally shitfaced today but only got arrested for driving under the influence and luckily didn't hit anybody? That was totally out of their control, and the moment they sat down into their car they were as responsible as the teenage guy.
Also as KwarK mentioned locking him up for 20 years isn't going to help the people he killed, himself or society. There is no justice to be restored by putting a 16 year old in jail for the most part of his life, that's not going to bring the people he killed back. I would be fine with all drink drivers getting jail time, even if they do not hit anyone. Not for 20 years ofcourse, but too many young people think that drink driving is socially acceptable and we need to send a strong message that it is not.
I agree with this. He got away lighter than he should have just for driving intoxicated. Few week or couple of month in jail depending on the level of intoxication would be very acceptable. I mean for driving drunk, not only when you end up killing someone. Also 3 years ban from driving on first offence and lifetime ban the second time.
I understand that current rules are a bit too harsh to the people who actually end up killing someone but they are way too lenient to the ones who endanger others and get away with it. You can't address one side and leave the other alone.
|
On December 14 2013 20:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 16:08 Mercy13 wrote:On December 14 2013 15:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ? There really isn't a reason to put him in prison... In the US punishment is often viewed as a form of societal retribution, which when you think about it is pretty senseless. Alternatively it can be used as a deterrent, but if the thought of killing four people doesn't deter people from drunk driving 20 years in prison probably won't do the trick. I for one would love to see the US justice system change into one which focuses on rehabilitation rather than revenge. Are you serious ? And what's the reason to put someone in prison then ? It's a country where 12 years old kids go in prison for life. And now you're trying to justify letting a 16 years old go because he is rich, what in the fuck. A country where 10% of the population is in jail, with half of that convicted for robbery or drugs. Justice is not about individuals, it's about the society. Equality before justice (even if the justice in itself is hard - dura lex, sed les you know) is a necessity to make the citizen believe the collectiv institutions are not biaised toward some people in particular. Now you can discuss that overall justice in america is too hard (it certainly is), and put people in prison for things they are not entirely responsible of : in this case you could argue that everybody should have the same treatment as this rich kid. But this is not what anyone in here have been defending : the question is how to justify someone killing four people and not going in prison, while a lot of people in the same country go in prison for less. Take this little rich kid story and put it in perspective with what is america for most people : Show nested quote +At about 12.40pm on 2 January 1996, Timothy Jackson took a jacket from the Maison Blanche department store in New Orleans, draped it over his arm, and walked out of the store without paying for it. When he was accosted by a security guard, Jackson said: “I just needed another jacket, man.”
A few months later Jackson was convicted of shoplifting and sent to Angola prison in Louisiana. That was 16 years ago. Today he is still incarcerated in Angola, and will stay there for the rest of his natural life having been condemned to die in jail. All for the theft of a jacket, worth $159. Over 3,000 US prisoners serving life without parole for non-violent crimes (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/us-prisoners-sentences-life-non-violent-crimes). http://theweek.com/article/index/254145/being-rich-is-now-a-get-out-of-jail-free-card
I don't think there is much reason to put someone in prison, unless they are a danger to society. You are correct that the justice system treats many people horribly, especially the poor, and that three strikes laws lead to extremely unfair results. However, shouldn't you be arguing that the justice system should be reformed so that everyone is treated fairly? What interest do you think is served by putting this kid in jail for 20 years?
|
On December 14 2013 14:53 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 13:42 Nyxisto wrote:
Also i think it's really weird to judge someone who drinks and drives and creates an accident, like he actually grabbed a gun, went out and shot four people in the head. I don't think the outcome really is the important part.
What about the other thousand guys(probably way more) that drove totally shitfaced today but only got arrested for driving under the influence and luckily didn't hit anybody? That was totally out of their control, and the moment they sat down into their car they were as responsible as the teenage guy.
Also as KwarK mentioned locking him up for 20 years isn't going to help the people he killed, himself or society. There is no justice to be restored by putting a 16 year old in jail for the most part of his life, that's not going to bring the people he killed back. We don't charge everyone who shoots a gun in the air with murder. In our society, the consequences of one's actions matter.
I don't think it's legal to shoot around with guns everywhere for no reason even if you're not aiming at someone. And the analogy is really bad because someone just shooting in the air is not really putting anyone in danger.To make the analogy a little more fitting imagine two people shooting into a crowd. The first person kills someone, the second doesn't. Should we punish the first person with a 1000 dollar fee and take their gun away for three months and put the second person in jail for 10 years? Seems illogical.
And there is a difference between revenge and justice. Instead of putting him in jail, just take his driver license away, maybe forever or at least for twenty years. I think the main reason for society to lock people up in prison is to protect other people. This 16 year old guy isn't a danger to society as long as he is not in a car. He doesn't need to be locked up. In my eyes every punishment that exceeds the need for protection is old-testament like eye for an eye logic.
|
On December 14 2013 20:13 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 16:08 Mercy13 wrote:On December 14 2013 15:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ? There really isn't a reason to put him in prison... In the US punishment is often viewed as a form of societal retribution, which when you think about it is pretty senseless. Alternatively it can be used as a deterrent, but if the thought of killing four people doesn't deter people from drunk driving 20 years in prison probably won't do the trick. I for one would love to see the US justice system change into one which focuses on rehabilitation rather than revenge. Are you serious ? And what's the reason to put someone in prison then ? It's a country where 12 years old kids go in prison for life. And now you're trying to justify letting a 16 years old go because he is rich, what in the fuck. A country where 10% of the population is in jail, with half of that convicted for robbery or drugs. Justice is not about individuals, it's about the society. Equality before justice (even if the justice in itself is hard - dura lex, sed les you know) is a necessity to make the citizen believe the collectiv institutions are not biaised toward some people in particular. Now you can discuss that overall justice in america is too hard (it certainly is), and put people in prison for things they are not entirely responsible of : in this case you could argue that everybody should have the same treatment as this rich kid. But this is not what anyone in here have been defending : the question is how to justify someone killing four people and not going in prison, while a lot of people in the same country go in prison for less. Take this little rich kid story and put it in perspective with what is america for most people : Show nested quote +At about 12.40pm on 2 January 1996, Timothy Jackson took a jacket from the Maison Blanche department store in New Orleans, draped it over his arm, and walked out of the store without paying for it. When he was accosted by a security guard, Jackson said: “I just needed another jacket, man.”
A few months later Jackson was convicted of shoplifting and sent to Angola prison in Louisiana. That was 16 years ago. Today he is still incarcerated in Angola, and will stay there for the rest of his natural life having been condemned to die in jail. All for the theft of a jacket, worth $159. Over 3,000 US prisoners serving life without parole for non-violent crimes (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/13/us-prisoners-sentences-life-non-violent-crimes). + Show Spoiler +http://theweek.com/article/index/254145/being-rich-is-now-a-get-out-of-jail-free-card
Citing "affluenza" is certainly on the extremely weird side, but overall I don't think the sentence was that wrong. The kid is only 16 after all.
As for sentencing in general, it's a common complaint that criminals get sentences that are too light when they hit the news and everyone is emotionally charged up. Legislators then respond by enacting tough mandatory minimums / three strike laws. That then leads to situations like with Timothy Jackson - he was found guilty of his 4th felony under Louisiana law and so the sentence was harsh (looks like the life sentence was vacated - source).
So it's a tough situation. Either judges can have discretion and some get off too easy, or we have the minimums and some get too harsh a sentence.
And to correct you, 10% of the population is not in jail.
As of 2009, the incarceration rate was 743 per 100,000 of national population (0.743%) Link
|
United States43611 Posts
On December 14 2013 15:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ?
Because 16 year olds are about to start reading the news and then learning from the mistakes of those who came before them? All 16 year olds ever always believe that they're different and nothing bad will ever happen and that they know best. 16 year olds are universally retarded. This is a problem solved by education, not a vague threat of deterrence.
|
On December 15 2013 02:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 15:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ? Because 16 year olds are about to start reading the news and then learning from the mistakes of those who came before them? All 16 year olds ever always believe that they're different and nothing bad will ever happen and that they know best. 16 year olds are universally retarded. This is a problem solved by education, not a vague threat of deterrence.
Education and experience.*
|
On December 15 2013 02:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 15:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ? Because 16 year olds are about to start reading the news and then learning from the mistakes of those who came before them? All 16 year olds ever always believe that they're different and nothing bad will ever happen and that they know best. 16 year olds are universally retarded. This is a problem solved by education, not a vague threat of deterrence.
It's not about the 16 years old kid only. Did you thought justice was only about "FIXING UP" the people who do arm ?
What's justice for you really ? You can discuss the overall way the US consider justice, the morality behind the norm, but saying a specific kid, because he is rich, should not have to respond for his act like another kid is absolutly wrong.
Yeah my bad I added a 0.
|
that's exactly the kind of north texas spoiled fuckheads I grew up with
let the little shit rot in jail
|
On December 15 2013 02:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2013 15:25 WhiteDog wrote:
Seriously, did you forget what justice means Kwark ? Did you thought it was about individuals only ? Because 16 year olds are about to start reading the news and then learning from the mistakes of those who came before them? All 16 year olds ever always believe that they're different and nothing bad will ever happen and that they know best. 16 year olds are universally retarded. This is a problem solved by education, not a vague threat of deterrence.
In that case 16 year olds should not be on the road, or their parents should be responsible for making sure the kid does not have access to his car when he is drunk.
|
it's the entire culture in that part of the world. everyone drinks and drives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
