Too rich to jail

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

Minimum sentencing laws appeared to have messed up this calculus, and I would agree with you if there was no parole involved. With parole, though, I'm leaning the other way.

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.

You have no idea how hard it is to resist posting a link to a Billy Joel song right now...
 
When I was in high school, some kids broke in to our house and stole about $1000 worth of stuff, were immediately caught, and returned our stuff by that evening. They received a 90 day jail sentence that was suspended on the condition that they mow the neighborhood cemetery all summer. That same spring, a man in a nearby town ran down and killed two teenagers; the newspaper reporting made it sound intentional. He also received a 90 day jail sentence that was suspended with no conditions that I know of. Sentences often make no sense whatsoever.
 
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).

Is that consistent precedent, or just to be cheeky, a particularly good bit of advocacy in selecting the example? Genuinely curious.
 
Wonder if that somebody could get a DUI for recognizing somebody was trying to drug them with say, rohypnol, and trying to get the hell out of dodge, since they intended to drink the alcohol, just not what they wound up getting. Texas law encourages date rape? Could be a fun spin.
 
I'm genuinely curious now. How shocked do you think the defense lawyer was when the ridiculous defense actually worked? This affluenza thing sounds like something you'd come up with when you were simply going through the motions.
 
Wonder if that somebody could get a DUI for recognizing somebody was trying to drug them with say, rohypnol, and trying to get the hell out of dodge, since they intended to drink the alcohol, just not what they wound up getting. Texas law encourages date rape? Could be a fun spin.
Having something slipped in your non-alcoholic drink is on the innocent side of the line, but the drunk gal fleeing date rape better hope she had a tough childhood as a rich kid.
 
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.


I'm pretty sure it's people point out how screwed the judge's logic is. If the parents are the ones responsible, then they should be the ones to pay the price. As that would indeed be an awful miscarriage of justice, it's clear the judge's logic is flawed.
 
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. :lol:

Perhaps a 1% er may have a difficult time spending time with the 99% ers?
 
My friend went to jail and it all it taught him was how to get heroin. Now he's addicted to the stuff.

Another kid I know got locked up when he was 16. He had good grades and he was on the football team. He ended dropping out of high school and now he just sells drugs and steals from people.

I don't know what you guys expect prisons to accomplish, it's just an outburst of anger against somebody. Rehabilitation is the only thing that makes sense for all parties involved.

Prisons just create more of the people you wanted to get rid of in the first place.
 
I hardly think that makes the difference.

So what would you say makes people not get along with each other? It seems to me from what I have heard, you either fit into the community pretty quickly or you don't. It is supposed to be punishment, one had better get used to limited freedoms or remain miserable.
 
Prisons just create more of the people you wanted to get rid of in the first place.
You mean he might have become a self entitled arse that thinks nothing of killing 4 people if he were to be sentenced to prison?
 
People will likely starve or freeze to death, anyway, if not for this kid's future job creating abilities.
 
So what would you say makes people not get along with each other? It seems to me from what I have heard, you either fit into the community pretty quickly or you don't. It is supposed to be punishment, one had better get used to limited freedoms or remain miserable.

Well, sure, make the best of it. That doesn't mean it doesn't suck though.
 
My friend went to jail and it all it taught him was how to get heroin. Now he's addicted to the stuff.

Another kid I know got locked up when he was 16. He had good grades and he was on the football team. He ended dropping out of high school and now he just sells drugs and steals from people.

I don't know what you guys expect prisons to accomplish, it's just an outburst of anger against somebody. Rehabilitation is the only thing that makes sense for all parties involved.

Prisons just create more of the people you wanted to get rid of in the first place.
That is what the "3 strikes and you are out" laws are all about. Since the 80s, some states have really streamlined the entire operation to get them permanently separated from society.

I think Norway has the right approach. They have a retribution / rehabilitation system. Those who commit violent crimes and such serve a certain amount of time in prisons which aren't all that different than our own, except they are not overcrowded and being raped is not tolerated in the least.

After the criminals have served a fairly moderate period in a prison, they are transferred to facilities whose purpose is rehabilitation to help assure they become productive members of society.
 
Does res judicata function to inform any subsequent civil suit following the criminal trial? I'm not sure of the interplay between the criminal and civil courts in that regard.
Do you mean collateral estoppel?
 
The problem is the parents were not a party to the criminal suit, thus, with the lawyering they can afford, they can easily shift the blame back to their destitute son during a civil suit, thus wiggling out of the financial hit.
 
Top Bottom