Too rich to jail

[Borachio]

I imagine it was a single incident that caused the death of those people.

Otherwise I've got an image of a vehicle careering over town knocking a pedestrian over here, another over there, and the occasional body falling out of the vehicle.

If you look at the vehicle, it's pretty badly crushed up.

I should think he went driving hell for leather, hit another vehicle (or something) turned the car over and went ploughing into some group of pedestrians. Easy to do, if you go fast enough.

 

[Hygro]

Prison in the US while it may limit a person on amassing a fortune for themselves over time, is more of a burden on those who do work hard and pay their taxes allowing such people to be treated in a humane way. It does take away time from a person's life. Inside of prison is not that much different from living in a small community and enjoying or fearing that community. So technically staying in a prison for any amount of time does not "ruin the person", unless he develops a criminal mentality in prison and upon release figures out how to cheat the system even more.

Man I don't know what you're saying, prison would suck. Your forced to live in a dorm full of people who don't want to be there and can't leave.

 

[Kyriakos]

Most articles seem to depict life in most prisons (in the US too, maybe even moreso?) as pretty dangerous for the majority of inmates. They seem to run the rirk of being raped, killed, beaten etc.

Of course some prisons are a lot better (psychiatric wards for example), and in some nations the prison system is a lot safer (iirc Norway is a good example of that, but Norway bathes in oil cash anyway).

 

[KmDubya]

Exactly. I don't have any answer to your question.

It would seem society does, though. People seem generally quite happy for the legal system to set certain tariffs for certain crimes - and then, naturally, complain when they think those tariffs are too harsh or too lenient.



Just how far is anyone responsible for their own actions? Especially considering that being drunk clouds a person's judgement, distinctly. Which is the whole idea of getting drunk in the first place, isn't it?

Doesn't the wider society also share responsibility? Don't the parents bear a heavy responsibility for the actions of their children? Shouldn't the people surrounding a drunk person bear some responsibility for not preventing him from driving?

I only have questions. No answers.

No one forced the kid to drink, he made a choice.

No one forced the kid to drink that much, once again his choice.

No one forced the kid to drive while being that drunk, once again his choice.

I agree that the parents should have some responsibility as well as his drinking buddies who let it go this far and rode in the car with him.

Even in my own miss-spent youth when I was under the influence of LSD at a Dead show, me and my friends had enough sense to not go driving anywhere.

 

[JollyRoger]

At least the judge was ahead of the curve on the knockout hame:

A 14-year-old Fort Worth boy has been sentenced to 10 years in a juvenile jail for killing a stranger with a single unprovoked punch.

State District Judge Jean Boyd sentenced the boy Thursday. The teen, who is not being identified because he is a juvenile, admitted to a manslaughter charge earlier this year following the October attack on 40-year-old Mark Gregory.

A statement from the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office says the boy and two friends hopped out of a car that night when they saw Gregory walking. The punch knocked the 106-pound Gregory down and he hit his head on the pavement. He died two days later.

http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2012-03-15/texas-teen-sentenced-10-years-deadly-punch#.Uqs0OMuA3ct

My bet is the kid's parent(s) was (were) not rich enough to be deemed a failure at raising him properly.

It is true that the criminalvictim of coddling will be incarcerated. Looks like it may be in Norway or something:

http://www.hopebythesea.com/

From the FAQ:

What should I bring?

As Penny always says, pack like you are going to vacation at the beach.

And now the real tragedy to this story - the young man is being denied his 2nd Amendment Rights:

Do Not Bring:

• Valuables, jewelry, etc.

• Laptops (unless approved)

• Guns, knives, or any other weapons

• Illegal substances

• Any items containing alcohol, mouthwash, perfume, cologne, etc.

One Texas voters get wind of that detail, the judge faces dim prospects during the next election.

 

[Borachio]

No one forced the kid to drink, he made a choice.

No one forced the kid to drink that much, once again his choice.

No one forced the kid to drive while being that drunk, once again his choice.

I agree that the parents should have some responsibility as well as his drinking buddies who let it go this far and rode in the car with him.

Even in my own miss-spent youth when I was under the influence of LSD at a Dead show, me and my friends had enough sense to not go driving anywhere.

That's lucky for you, then, I'd say. That you had enough sense. (Or do you put your good sense down to something other than luck?)

Unlucky for him that he didn't.

I'm just not getting this blame game.

It's not going to bring the people back to life. Nor do I expect it to save any future victims of dwi, though I suppose conceivably it might, if handled right.

 

[.Shane.]

I think Peter and Cheezy are on the right track here. But I think the kid should have gotten between 10 and 20 years prison sentence. He'd probably be out in 8. But in addition to the penalty to the perp, there is also the deterrent to consider. A Texas judge just said that the rich can get a free ride on killing. But the kid really does deserve a long sentence. And now all the other rich kids are going to expect a free pass.

If they're on the right path, why do you diverge so much (at least w/ Peter) on the length of sentence?

FWIW, I agree w/ you here.

I'm totally okay with this defense so long as the parents get his jail time instead.

That would be interesting. Or, if, say, they had the option to take some of the, hypothetical, 8 years that Cutlass and I would assign him.

A civil suit will probably destroy the family fortune.

And since, apparently, that's what this family cares about most, perhaps taking every penny they have is the best punishment...


Nah... send him to jail for a decade.... and yes, have them lose their fortune in civil court.

 

[Antilogic]

I'm going to go ahead and say I'm not as interested in this parental jail time option as the rest of you folks seem to be. Does it go both ways? If a parent fails to serve out his sentence, should their kid finish it off?

The people responsible for this are the driver and his buddies who were accessories to it.

 

[.Shane.]

I'm going to go ahead and say I'm not as interested in this parental jail time option as the rest of you folks seem to be. Does it go both ways? If a parent fails to serve out his sentence, should their kid finish it off?

The people responsible for this are the driver and his buddies who were accessories to it.

It's more tongue and cheek for me.

I agree in that, unless they played a role (IE supplied the alcohol or facilitated this in some way other than a legacy of privilege) that they shouldn't go to jail. I do think that that if they lost a good part of their wealth in the surely following civil litigation, that would be appropriate.

 

[Cutlass]

If they're on the right path, why do you diverge so much (at least w/ Peter) on the length of sentence?

FWIW, I agree w/ you here.

Well, I think they are basically right in spirit, if not in all the specifics.

 

[peter grimes]

You are aware that he'd have been eligible for parole in 2 years, yes?

No, I was not aware of that. Nor was I aware that the judge could only choose between 20 years or no years.

 

[Antilogic]

It's more tongue and cheek for me.

I agree in that, unless they played a role (IE supplied the alcohol or facilitated this in some way other than a legacy of privilege) that they shouldn't go to jail. I do think that that if they lost a good part of their wealth in the surely following civil litigation, that would be appropriate.

I couldn't tell with some people on a cursory scan through the thread, so I wasn't going to quote any one post in particular. I wasn't responding specifically to you but you happened to be above me in the post list.

But yeah, in principle this.

No, I was not aware of that. Nor was I aware that the judge could only choose between 20 years or no years.

Given the information on the parole with this, I would have picked 20 years with the chance of early parole. I'm not usually an over-the-top law and order guy, but killing and maiming six people needs to have some more serious consequences.

 

[Borachio]

16 is kind of young to receive 20 years imprisonment, isn't it? Even with parole.

 

[DinoDoc]

16 is kind of young to receive 20 years imprisonment, isn't it? Even with parole.

He killed 4 people. It's kinda light.

 

[Borachio]

He was responsible for causing their deaths through gross negligence, yes.

 

[Farm Boy]

16 is kind of young to receive 20 years imprisonment, isn't it? Even with parole.

Dunno. Doesn't seem out of line for how we punish other things though. That sex offender registry can be for life, and it can target those who aren't 18, and it isn't always triggered by the act most people associate with it. And the end of this particular day, 4 people weren't breathing anymore. It reeks of unequal before the law. We treat the mens rhea of choosing to drink, then choosing to drive as generally sufficient guilt to up things into murder territory, do we not? Or would that be unusual in TX? Do you know how it's "usually" treated JR?

 

[Borachio]

Indeed it does. Undeniably so.

 

[JollyRoger]

16 is kind of young to receive 20 years imprisonment, isn't it? Even with parole.

4 Justices on the Supreme Court think life without the possibility of parole is ok for a 16 year old.

 

[JollyRoger]

Dunno. Doesn't seem out of line for how we punish other things though. That sex offender registry can be for life, and it can target those who aren't 18, and it isn't always triggered by the act most people associate with it. And the end of this particular day, 4 people weren't breathing anymore. It reeks of unequal before the law. We treat the mens rhea of choosing to drink, then choosing to drive as generally sufficient guilt to up things into murder territory, do we not? Or would that be unusual in TX? Do you know how it's "usually" treated JR?

A guy that picked up the wrong medicine (his wife had set it out for him) was convicted on a DUI and the intent element was satisfied by his intention to take the medicine (even though he was mistaken of what he was taking).

 

[Cutlass]

He killed 4 people. It's kinda light.

In theory. In practice, happens all the time. Some people in Rhode Island killed over 100 people, and spent less than 2 years in prison.