| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:01 sam!zdat wrote: it's the entire culture in that part of the world. everyone drinks and drives. Not EVERYONE, but yea. I don't even know if it's the "socially acceptable" part, but probably the "be Texas tough and don't admit you're drunk" part. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On December 15 2013 02:51 sam!zdat wrote: that's exactly the kind of north texas spoiled fuckheads I grew up with let the little shit rot in jail Fucking right. I bet he wouldn't DUI again after serving 10 years. Fuck him he ruined god knows how many lives. Committed four counts of vehicular homicide while intoxicated and gets probation while people do real time for doing drugs. That's the opposite of justice. If people have a problem punishing kids who kill others with their car why are we licensing them? Everything about that case smells like shit. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 15 2013 02:35 WhiteDog wrote: 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. And how much social commentary should we really do because of one unusual, and likely sensationalized, story? A general complaint of the US justice system is that mandatory minimums are too strict and that they dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. And now here we are now saying the opposite - that the law is too lax and discretion is being abused. I imagine there are facts to the case beyond the headline of "affluenza". What are they? And did the judge really make the wrong call here or is this a positive precedent? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote: A general complaint of the US justice system is that mandatory minimums are too strict and that they dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. And now here we are now saying the opposite - that the law is too lax and discretion is being abused. it's not the opposite duh. your second sentence is a corollary of your first. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote: And how much social commentary should we really do because of one unusual, and likely sensationalized, story? A general complaint of the US justice system is that mandatory minimums are too strict and that they dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. And now here we are now saying the opposite - that the law is too lax and discretion is being abused. I imagine there are facts to the case beyond the headline of "affluenza". What are they? And did the judge really make the wrong call here or is this a positive precedent? I think the moral of this discussion is that minimum sentencing is too harsh on the poor, and normal sentencing is too lenient on those afflicted with "affluenza." The judge made the wrong call, probably due to an argument we will never hear the full details of. | ||
KwarK
United States44336 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:13 heliusx wrote: Fucking right. I bet he wouldn't DUI again after serving 10 years. Fuck him he ruined god knows how many lives. Committed four counts of vehicular homicide while intoxicated and gets probation while people do real time for doing drugs. That's the opposite of justice. If people have a problem punishing kids who kill others with their car why are we licensing them? Everything about that case smells like shit. You're paying for this vengeance that ruins a fifth life on top of the four he took with your tax dollars whereas this way his parents are paying to fix him. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:31 sam!zdat wrote: it's not the opposite duh. your second sentence is a corollary of your first. Lack of discretion vs too much discretion. Opposites. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Lack of discretion vs too much discretion. Opposites. what's the point of the complaint jonny. use your brain. hint: On December 15 2013 03:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote: dis-proportionally hurt the poor and minorities. now let's ask ourselves jonny how do they do that? | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:43 sam!zdat wrote: what's the point of the complaint jonny. use your brain. hint: now let's ask ourselves jonny how do they do that? What are you disagreeing over? There's a bad outcome - disparate impact. Often mandatory minimums are cited as a cause. Here, lack of a minimum is a cause. It is a different thing causing the same outcome. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote: What are you disagreeing over? There's a bad outcome - disparate impact. Often mandatory minimums are cited as a cause. Here, lack of a minimum is a cause. It is a different thing causing the same outcome. the point is that the justice system is systematically biased against the poor. the mechanism by which that occurs is that the rich can afford lawyers who can play tricks with the system in order to get their clients more lenient judgments. this is an example of that. so the two things that you mention are the same complaint. it's completely consistent. edit: i grew up with these people and there is a pervasive culture of entitlement. they've been gaming the system so long they come to expect it and believe they are above the law. you guys don't know what it's like in texas | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:41 KwarK wrote: You're paying for this vengeance that ruins a fifth life on top of the four he took with your tax dollars whereas this way his parents are paying to fix him. Point is the vast majority of the young that do a similar act could bring upon the exact same point - poor parenting and poor environment. Especially those that are impoverished. If we're really so willing to state it was not the child's fault but the parent's fault for poor parenting, why is there not a vicarious liability case against the parents? Or does vicarious liability only pertain to civil and not criminal? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States44336 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote: What are you disagreeing over? There's a bad outcome - disparate impact. Often mandatory minimums are cited as a cause. Here, lack of a minimum is a cause. It is a different thing causing the same outcome. Lack of minimum is NOT the cause. The problem is not even that the kid was released, it is that he was released on the ground that his condition (being rich lol) made him not entirely responsible for his actions, while others in different conditions are considered responsible. I don't see the word "justice" in any of your posts because using that word would force you to think about this court sentence relatively to others (yeah that is justice, it's the social norm in action on all of us, and everybody is supposed to be equal before it) and not only on the specific situation of that kid. On December 15 2013 04:05 KwarK wrote: Your average person can't afford to give the judge a choice between prison (paid for by the state which probably won't fix anything) and probation + therapy etc (paid for by the parents and may actually turn him into a productive member of society) but that doesn't change the fact that in this case, if the experts are to be trusted, the judge made the optimal decision. Less money means fewer options which means prison might be the optimal outcome for other people but it doesn't mean that the law would be unfairly pursuing those without money while letting off those with. Do you envision the society that your view would create ? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On December 15 2013 03:59 sam!zdat wrote: i've never claimed that the point is that the justice system is systematically biased against the poor. the mechanism by which that occurs is that the rich can afford lawyers who can play tricks with the system in order to get their clients more lenient judgments. this is an example of that. so the two things that you mention are the same complaint. it's completely consistent. edit: i grew up with these people and there is a pervasive culture of entitlement. they've been gaming the system so long they come to expect it and believe they are above the law. you guys don't know what it's like in texas I still don't see why you think mandatory minimums and judicial discretion are the same thing. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:05 KwarK wrote: Your average person can't afford to give the judge a choice between prison (paid for by the state which probably won't fix anything) and probation + therapy etc (paid for by the parents and may actually turn him into a productive member of society) but that doesn't change the fact that in this case, if the experts are to be trusted, the judge made the optimal decision. Less money means fewer options which means prison might be the optimal outcome for other people but it doesn't mean that the law would be unfairly pursuing those without money while letting off those with. So by that logic you are saying that exact thing - if you have the money, you can buy your way out of prison. That's a terrible precedent. You're specifically stating that the rich should have this option but the poor should not. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44336 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:03 FabledIntegral wrote: Point is the vast majority of the young that do a similar act could bring upon the exact same point - poor parenting and poor environment. Especially those that are impoverished. If we're really so willing to state it was not the child's fault but the parent's fault for poor parenting, why is there not a vicarious liability case against the parents? Or does vicarious liability only pertain to civil and not criminal? The child is a fucktard but I don't see the public good in ruining a 16 year old's life if there is another way. I'd be happy to see attempts to fix other teenagers who do dumb things paid for by the parents if it was judged possible. Obviously I'm not in favour of scrapping punishment altogether but in cases where it'd do no good and there is another option which would save the state a fortune I see no merit to choosing punishment out of spite. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44336 Posts
On December 15 2013 04:11 FabledIntegral wrote: So by that logic you are saying that exact thing - if you have the money, you can buy your way out of prison. That's a terrible precedent. You're specifically stating that the rich should have this option but the poor should not. I'm not saying the rich should have this option and the poor should not. I'm saying the rich do have this option and the poor do not. In the news today, wealth creates options. You're viewing it as buying your way out of punishment, I don't see it that way. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g8356 shahzam589 Day[9].tv443 PiGStarcraft96 NeuroSwarm74 ArmadaUGS71 ViBE54 JuggernautJason35 |
|
OSC
Stellar Fest
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
FEL
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
herO vs Classic
Percival vs Rogue
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
