|
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. |
On December 15 2013 06:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The difference in ability to deter between some punishment and basically no punishment however, is absolutely there. And that's what I was commenting on when I replied to Kwark, the idea that justice is blind and has no educational purpose. I disagree entirely with that, I think justice is political, and should be political, and it should be one of many components in trying to educate citizens towards making healthier choices for themselves and everyone else. As for 16 year old kids, I'm opposed to strict punishments of them by default because every teenager does retarded shit and it's largely just a coin-toss whether the retarded shit you do when you are 16 ends up having dire consequences for yourself or others.
Basically, this last paragraph bit is my view. We're not going to death penalty kids, that fits in the "some punishment" level. Generally, the deterrent effect is undervalued and understated in these discussions. They aren't always going to do it anyways.
|
On December 15 2013 07:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 06:47 KwarK wrote:On December 15 2013 05:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Kwark, you disagree with law being supposed to have a preventive effect? This is "the message that is being sent", that rich people can get away with committing crimes that poor people cannot. How is that an okay message to send? Unless you actually believe that rich people should be allowed to commit crimes that poor people should not be allowed to? How is he being allowed to do anything? He got caught and has been sentenced. I don't see how it's fair that the message being sent is a reasonable factor for the punishment. Gang crime is way higher in black communities than whites yet if I proposed harsher sentences for black people to send the black community a message that it was unacceptable you'd not approve of it, and rightly so. Isn't gang crime basically something that is punished more harshly than similar, non-gang crime in the first place? Which targets black people by default? This is what I meant when I alluded to the difference in punishment for different drugs in my earlier post; crack cocaine is punished with jail time whereas cocaine is punished with rehabilitation, I consider this an extension of that discriminatory policy. It's a continuation of viewing poor people as less capable of reform, more prone to "bad personal moral", and in general worse people. And it offends me more so knowing that it's happening in a society which greatly reinforces patterns of wealth, one where wealth actually doesn't correlate with personal integrity, societal contribution or kindness of heart. I'm not at all proposing a harsher punishment for him because he is rich, I'm proposing not-lesser punishment for being rich. And I would be absolutely delighted, to the point where I would dance around in the streets screaming "YES! THEY'RE MAKING THE WORLD BETTER!" if the US penal system in general decided to adopt a policy of rehabilitation over punishment. But this is not indicative of that; this is an example of the US penal system selectively abandoning its principles to give a lighter punishment for a rich kid for reasons I can only speculate about.
I think the highlighted part is the crux of the difference in opinion. While Jonny has cited a, so-so source, it is still not clear that this is a lighter punishment than other people would recieve under the circumstances. The story of his prior contact with law enforcement, however, may be seen as an aggravating circumstance, as well as his massive speeding and drunk driving. There is certainly enough circumstances that could warrent a "harsher than average" penalty, but without a better understanding of how the law is applied tp these types of crime it seems a bit hasty to blame foul play (whether that be bribes or movement of legal punishment to "alternative rehabilitation methods").
|
United States44330 Posts
On December 15 2013 07:37 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 07:33 KwarK wrote:On December 15 2013 07:29 darthfoley wrote:On December 15 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 15 2013 04:24 sam!zdat wrote:
but he WON'T be rehabilitated while on prohibition because his parents are the reason he's a spoiled shit in the first place. he's going to keep on being an entitled asshole Have you ever killed 4 people? Do you know whats going on in the kids head? There is a big difference between not caring about drunk driving and not caring about killing 4 people. If he cared about killing four people he wouldn't have had daddy pay a psychologist big $$ to testify that "affluenza" is an actual thing. Man up. Ironic-- using the argument of affluenza (his parents never taught him that there are consequences for his actions) to justify getting relatively no consequences for his actions. Hilarious. Whereas this way he'll learn... wait, he'll be in prison til he's 36 and then come out with no skills and no prospects and probably still give no fucks because prison sucks at actually dealing with the root causes of crime. How is taking the most futile option manning up? Did I ever say I would've given him the max sentence with no probation/therapy option? No. I do believe he should've been awarded SOME jail time and some accompanying therapy. I am well aware of the consequences of prison in regards to finding a job after being released. It shouldn't leave him with no prospects-- but that's a different issue. You also make the assumption that he will becoming a shining citizen because of this therapy. Plenty of people have gone to rehab, e.g. Linday Lohan, and done the same shit afterwards. This young man needs to finally HAVE some consequences for his actions. I'm not saying the kid is inherently and categorically bad. He did however, get off much lighter than a poor kid would've in those circumstances, mainly because of his wealth and social status. This sort of precedent is not just.
Not because he was a member of the richer class who are simply exempt but because the willingness of a third party (his parents) to fund his rehabilitation meant that sentences that are not usually viable due to being too expensive were available and judged to be appropriate. He was not given a sentence the judge felt inappropriate, he was given a sentence the judge believed was appropriate and effective. He was not exempted from sentencing because his parents were rich. Saying he got off because of his wealth is a complete mischaracterisation of what happened. He was given what the justice system felt was appropriate.
|
Norway28899 Posts
radiatoren, that source was for people caught drunk driving. There is a big difference, especially in the US, between being caught drunk driving and killing 4 people while drunk driving. If this guy was poor and black, there is not a chance in hell he would not be going to jail.
edit: I messed up, the source is kinda relevant anyway.
|
On December 15 2013 07:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
radiatoren, that source was for people caught drunk driving. There is a big difference, especially in the US, between being caught drunk driving and killing 4 people while drunk driving. If this guy was poor and black, there is not a chance in hell he would not be going to jail.
My source was people in Minnesota who caused death while driving drunk. Texas could be different, of course. Do you have any statistics on that or are you just running with what you *know*?
|
On December 15 2013 07:29 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 15 2013 04:24 sam!zdat wrote:
but he WON'T be rehabilitated while on prohibition because his parents are the reason he's a spoiled shit in the first place. he's going to keep on being an entitled asshole Have you ever killed 4 people? Do you know whats going on in the kids head? There is a big difference between not caring about drunk driving and not caring about killing 4 people. If he cared about killing four people he wouldn't have had daddy pay a psychologist big $$ to testify that "affluenza" is an actual thing. Man up. Ironic-- using the argument of affluenza (his parents never taught him that there are consequences for his actions) to justify getting relatively no consequences for his actions. Hilarious.
If you actually believe the our arguments are related then there is no point trying to convince you that there not...
|
Norway28899 Posts
Oh, sorry, my bad entirely. I misread what you linked, and didn't see that deaths caused was mentioned.
|
Jonny's source is irrelevant anyway since in the article Minnesota is presented as a special case: they treat drunk driving gently (it is not the effect of a conscient desire to actually "fix" people who do bad behavior, just a specific tolerance towards one type of conduct). Plus they still get one year in prison for killing someone - young rich killed four, injured two.
It has nothing to do with what is discussed in here, altho it could be argued it is another proof that the judicial system is unfair and skewed.
|
On December 15 2013 08:47 WhiteDog wrote:
Jonny's source is irrelevant anyway since in the article Minnesota is presented as a special case: they treat drunk driving gently (it is not the effect of a conscient desire to actually "fix" people who do bad behavior, just a specific tolerance towards one type of conduct). Plus they still get one year in prison for killing someone - young rich killed four, injured two.
It has nothing to do with what is discussed in here, altho it could be argued it is another proof that the judicial system is unfair and skewed.
My source said 60% received no prison time. But yeah, so what's the norm in Texas?
|
On December 14 2013 14:40 Stratos_speAr 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. 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.
I have driven drunk. I'm not proud of it, but I have done it. While I felt fairly in control, I have to assume I probably wasn't, and if someone had crossed the road I may very well have been incapable of reacting in time. Yet I got away scot free (not even a fine, because no police). He clearly is guilty... but what on earth is throwing him in jail going to do?
The only thing that can stop people from driving drunk is stricter controls combined with better alternative transport options (ps. I almost always take a taxi, and driving drunk was an exception). As long as drunk drivers happen as often as they do, accidents will happen (which is not to say that the drunk driver is guilt-free, he clearly isn't... but 20 years in jail is utterly disproportional)
|
On December 15 2013 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 04:06 WhiteDog wrote:
Do you envision the society that your view would create ? You don't need to envision anything. Look up Sweden on Wikipedia. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-prisons-number-inmates-plummets) Literally every country which has applied the rehabilitation approach instead of the "drive him through the village and hang him" approach has not only done great with it but also saved a shitload of money.
The Netherlands is renting prison space to Belgium (or at least it was a few years back... not sure about now), because there were too many cells for the number of prisoners.
|
Hi, US is corporate oligarchy and political system is complete rubbish. that is all
- us citizen
User was banned for this post.
|
Are people really asking for this kids head at the age of 16? O.o
Send him to prison for 20 years, what do you get? a guy who's been brutally destroyed by prison system, comes out jaded as fuck, with absolutely no life skills at the age of 36, with no one willing to hire an inmate.
Rehabilitation and 10 year probation, might still have a chance at being a productive member of society. The kid did something dumb, not malicious.
|
10 years probation sounds good to me, have a few of those years at the start be on house arrest. Give him the highest level of supervision the entire time. Give him ten thousand hours community service. Don't throw him in jail to rot just because you're pissed that he caused the deaths of four people. The kid was reckless and 4 people died because of it, but he didn't intend to kill them and there's no reason to think he's going to lead a destructive life if the book isn't thrown at him.
If this guy was poor and black, there is not a chance in hell he would not be going to jail.
What does race have to do with it, the kid has parents loaded enough that they can institutionalize him in a private facility pretty much indefinitely if they want to. Not many judges are going to object to that and it happens all the time, usually before a judge can even get involved. There's lots of insane or just plain vicious rich guy's sons stashed away at private institutions all over this country and it's been that way for over a hundred years. You're the second-richest guy in the state and your son just beat the maid within an inch of her life and raped her? Off to Hollingsworth for the next 15 years, Judge McKinley and daddy had a chat and agree it's the best thing for everybody. Or daddy and his lawyer had a chat and you're going off before Judge McKinley has a chance to find out about it. Kinda hard to keep it quiet with four bodies on the road is all. And really if old man moneybags wants to shut little Buddy away where he can't hurt anyone and it doesn't involve expending the time and resources of the state, what is wrong with that? Because little Ronny has to go to jail because his dad isn't old man moneybags or skipped out? Because that's unfair? Well shit let's just toss both of them in jail because otherwise it would be unfair, so we can put two lives in an environment more likely to make them unfit for non-criminal life than anything else, instead of one. We have to do something with little Ronny and the dead bodies he's responsible for. Are we going to expect society to shoulder the financial burden that little Buddy's father does, because otherwise it would be unfair? Four people dead is four people dead, we expect society to shoulder the burden of little Ronny because there's no other entity to do it. If little Buddy's dad offers to shoulder some large share of that burden, why should there be an objection to that? Because it's unfair to little Ronny? He just hypothetically killed four people too. His punishment being - or seeming - more onerous because his family isn't rich isn't really something that should be high on a list of concerns. I don't think this kid is going to be sitting around loving his my-dad's-rich life any time soon. And finally, why should we make his punishment more onerous just to satisfy our own sensibilities about our power over others' lives? If you're concerned about that power being used unfairly or unwisely, is the solution really to increase its use in one case because in another you thought it was already being used too much? That just doesn't make sense to me.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I don't mind kids getting probation/rehab for dumb mistakes but you better be willing to give every kid the same treatment. It's Texas though, so it'd be best for them to just lock him up for a bit at the very least.
|
I guess people are just wondering, how in a place like the U.S. where jailtime usually gets handed out like candy, someone can get away with "murder" like this. Of course all of this is blown out of proportion, because your media really is the worst and most hysteric I've ever seen. But still it's fishy, how somebody, who fucked up on every account, can get away scot-free from being responsible for killing people. I mean, how does his upbringing and the wealth of his family have any impact at all on himself making one of the worst choices you can make, getting into your car intoxicated. Apart from that, drunk driving is an easily avoidable thing, it's nothing you HAVE to do, or you can be MADE to do by anything. It's nothing like stealing food or whatever for just maintaining. It's a deliberate act of at least risking the very likely outcome, of you destroying your own or somebody elses life for just no reason.
Over in God's Own Country, you've sent so many children to prison and so many people for really negligible stuff compared to this. It's really funny though, how many people jump at his defense, just because of the fact he comes off wealthy lol. I've a read similar topics on TL, where some of these same people did just the opposite for people, who were poor.
Oh, by the way. To throw in anecdotes like most here: My parents are wealthy, and I drive while high sometimes. I don't see how I should get a lesser sentence in case of harming anybody. If anything, shouldn't it be harsher? But I've never understood the western worlds attitude to intoxicants anyway. You're not allowed to do it, but if you do it, you get treated like you're some kind of special retard, who didn't know what he was doing. Kind of silly and an approach that just screams, "I've been thought out by people, who were never high and somehow mystify the effects of drugs on our mind to something so big, nobody can control and thus not be held responsible for it.". Same goes for this trend of being able to claim anything in your life to be responsible for any bad or illegal action you've taken.
Guess it's just the times and these are indeed times of great cowardice.
|
On December 15 2013 15:22 DeepElemBlues wrote:10 years probation sounds good to me, have a few of those years at the start be on house arrest. Give him the highest level of supervision the entire time. Give him ten thousand hours community service. Don't throw him in jail to rot just because you're pissed that he caused the deaths of four people. The kid was reckless and 4 people died because of it, but he didn't intend to kill them and there's no reason to think he's going to lead a destructive life if the book isn't thrown at him. Show nested quote +If this guy was poor and black, there is not a chance in hell he would not be going to jail. What does race have to do with it, the kid has parents loaded enough that they can institutionalize him in a private facility pretty much indefinitely if they want to. Not many judges are going to object to that and it happens all the time, usually before a judge can even get involved. There's lots of insane or just plain vicious rich guy's sons stashed away at private institutions all over this country and it's been that way for over a hundred years. You're the second-richest guy in the state and your son just beat the maid within an inch of her life and raped her? Off to Hollingsworth for the next 15 years, Judge McKinley and daddy had a chat and agree it's the best thing for everybody. Or daddy and his lawyer had a chat and you're going off before Judge McKinley has a chance to find out about it. Kinda hard to keep it quiet with four bodies on the road is all. And really if old man moneybags wants to shut little Buddy away where he can't hurt anyone and it doesn't involve expending the time and resources of the state, what is wrong with that? Because little Ronny has to go to jail because his dad isn't old man moneybags or skipped out? Because that's unfair? Well shit let's just toss both of them in jail because otherwise it would be unfair, so we can put two lives in an environment more likely to make them unfit for non-criminal life than anything else, instead of one. We have to do something with little Ronny and the dead bodies he's responsible for. Are we going to expect society to shoulder the financial burden that little Buddy's father does, because otherwise it would be unfair? Four people dead is four people dead, we expect society to shoulder the burden of little Ronny because there's no other entity to do it. If little Buddy's dad offers to shoulder some large share of that burden, why should there be an objection to that? Because it's unfair to little Ronny? He just hypothetically killed four people too. His punishment being - or seeming - more onerous because his family isn't rich isn't really something that should be high on a list of concerns. I don't think this kid is going to be sitting around loving his my-dad's-rich life any time soon. And finally, why should we make his punishment more onerous just to satisfy our own sensibilities about our power over others' lives? If you're concerned about that power being used unfairly or unwisely, is the solution really to increase its use in one case because in another you thought it was already being used too much? That just doesn't make sense to me.
Shitty US prison system makes your argument stronger than it should be, but fairness in punishing sometimes should be required even if you can reach better results with unfair approach. Problem with different punishments for the same crimes is that it undermines social trust in justice system and that in time brings much bigger negative results that more than offsets the small positive of not putting one guy in US jail.
|
Shitty US prison system makes your argument stronger than it should be, but fairness in punishing sometimes should be required even if you can reach better results with unfair approach. Problem with different punishments for the same crimes is that it undermines social trust in justice system and that in time brings much bigger negative results that more than offsets the small positive of not putting one guy in US jail.
I actually think the state of the US prison system is a very small part of my argument, I'm more concerned about the justice system being susceptible to initial emotional impressions which almost always results in a clamor that 'the government must be more heavy-handed in this case!' (and, by extension, spend more money and exert more power over individuals) Until the time it becomes fashionable to deride that heavy-handedness and expense... which is usually not very much later. People are too compartmentalized in their thinking. This guy deserves the book thrown at him! Okay, well if we did that in every case where someone is outraged at the alleged miscarriage of justice, there'd be a lot more people behind bars and social trust in the justice system would be even lower. They're going to take a bulldozer to the rest of your life 999 times out of 1000 if you get in trouble with the law is a lot more threatening than sometimes, perhaps even too often, results are achieved that don't seem "fair" when placed in comparison to another example.
These kinds of cases seem to be outliers anyway.
But still it's fishy, how somebody, who fucked up on every account, can get away scot-free from being responsible for killing people.
He's on probation for ten years in Texas, which along with the high-profile nature of his case, very much refutes the assertion that he got away scot-free. He's going to have the hand of the state of Texas up his butthole for that ten years. I doubt it's going to be a pleasant decade for him. But really your post seems to be more you venting about stereotypes about America and mind-reading about why people are 'jumping to his defense.' Their alleged moral inferiority doesn't make what you're saying automatically right.
|
On December 15 2013 07:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 07:37 darthfoley wrote:On December 15 2013 07:33 KwarK wrote:On December 15 2013 07:29 darthfoley wrote:On December 15 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:On December 15 2013 04:24 sam!zdat wrote:
but he WON'T be rehabilitated while on prohibition because his parents are the reason he's a spoiled shit in the first place. he's going to keep on being an entitled asshole Have you ever killed 4 people? Do you know whats going on in the kids head? There is a big difference between not caring about drunk driving and not caring about killing 4 people. If he cared about killing four people he wouldn't have had daddy pay a psychologist big $$ to testify that "affluenza" is an actual thing. Man up. Ironic-- using the argument of affluenza (his parents never taught him that there are consequences for his actions) to justify getting relatively no consequences for his actions. Hilarious. Whereas this way he'll learn... wait, he'll be in prison til he's 36 and then come out with no skills and no prospects and probably still give no fucks because prison sucks at actually dealing with the root causes of crime. How is taking the most futile option manning up? Did I ever say I would've given him the max sentence with no probation/therapy option? No. I do believe he should've been awarded SOME jail time and some accompanying therapy. I am well aware of the consequences of prison in regards to finding a job after being released. It shouldn't leave him with no prospects-- but that's a different issue. You also make the assumption that he will becoming a shining citizen because of this therapy. Plenty of people have gone to rehab, e.g. Linday Lohan, and done the same shit afterwards. This young man needs to finally HAVE some consequences for his actions. I'm not saying the kid is inherently and categorically bad. He did however, get off much lighter than a poor kid would've in those circumstances, mainly because of his wealth and social status. This sort of precedent is not just. Not because he was a member of the richer class who are simply exempt but because the willingness of a third party (his parents) to fund his rehabilitation meant that sentences that are not usually viable due to being too expensive were available and judged to be appropriate. He was not given a sentence the judge felt inappropriate, he was given a sentence the judge believed was appropriate and effective. He was not exempted from sentencing because his parents were rich. Saying he got off because of his wealth is a complete mischaracterisation of what happened. He was given what the justice system felt was appropriate.
And I don't agree with the justice system that his sentencing was "appropriate".
|
On December 15 2013 14:39 wei2coolman wrote:
Are people really asking for this kids head at the age of 16? O.o
Send him to prison for 20 years, what do you get? a guy who's been brutally destroyed by prison system, comes out jaded as fuck, with absolutely no life skills at the age of 36, with no one willing to hire an inmate.
Rehabilitation and 10 year probation, might still have a chance at being a productive member of society. The kid did something dumb, not malicious.
And in 20 years, those four people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time are still dead. While I don't think he deserves jail, your attitude is a little too cavalier with regard to the lives he took.
I wonder if his family will have its wealth stunted severely in civil court when those families sue his rich parents. I hope so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
