|
Post by shykid on May 3, 2011 11:04:23 GMT -5
I think there are some real positives in this outcome. It is emotional but it isn't total incaceration and is less likely to institutionalize the offender. Also by forcing the offender to face their victims I think it makes the offender less likely to view his punishment as coming from a faceless and apathetic "system" and more the end result of actions that he is responsible for. This.
|
|
|
Post by anti-nonsense on May 3, 2011 20:34:12 GMT -5
making him spend Christmas in jail is too much.....the rest is good.
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on May 4, 2011 3:16:28 GMT -5
Christmas in jail? Depends on how well he gets on with his family. It may be a blessing!
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on May 4, 2011 6:12:15 GMT -5
I'm all for creative punishments like this. It's not cruel as it doesn't put the person being punished under any physical duress but it is unusual cause it makes him think. I like it.
Ironbite-wish this was a mandatory sentence for all people who drink and drive and kill.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on May 4, 2011 6:48:08 GMT -5
I'm all for creative punishments like this. It's not cruel as it doesn't put the person being punished under any physical duress but it is unusual cause it makes him think. I like it. Ironbite-wish this was a mandatory sentence for all people who drink and drive and kill. I think killing someone while drunk should be treated as murder. They chose to down those drinks, and they're responsible for everything that happened after that.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 4, 2011 7:47:17 GMT -5
Yla -- This guy is getting off easy. Murderers are usually locked up for very, very long periods of time.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on May 4, 2011 8:13:00 GMT -5
Yes, Kitty, but there is a difference between murder and manslaughter. Click me. I bring it up because you are quite fond of the word murder and use it a lot (like in the gun control thread). I am afraid you might be confusing murder with it's "cousin" manslaughter. It's all about intent. Anyways, while I would be hard pressed to call this punishment cruel, it most certainly is unusual. To be honest, I'm not really sure how I feel about this. I guess let's see how it works out.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 4, 2011 8:55:07 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but if (generic) you get wasted, and get behind the wheel, your intent is clearly to place others in danger -- you have chosen to drive a 2,000 lb weapon, and your state of intoxication should not be a mitigating factor in your punishment should you "accidentally" kill someone. In fact, it should lead to harsher sentencing, because you are clearly not responsible enough to be part of society, and need to be removed for the safety of others.
I'm well aware of the distinction between manslaughter and murder. I just think that it requires a certain level of intent to get drunk and then drive. Especially when, hey, taxi service, or a designated driver, or, hell, you could just walk home, instead. And that means -- crazy thought, I know -- that drunks who choose to drive are deadly "accidents" just waiting to happen, and should absolutely be held fully accountable.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on May 4, 2011 9:50:22 GMT -5
Sure.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 4, 2011 10:10:38 GMT -5
What, you think "I was drunk" is a valid excuse? You think drunk drivers should get off with a slap on the wrist?
No?
Would you care to explain just what you disagree with, when I said that drunk drivers should be held fully accountable for all choices that led up to an "accident"?
|
|
|
Post by rookie on May 4, 2011 10:27:16 GMT -5
No, Kitty, I would not.
|
|
|
Post by rookie on May 4, 2011 10:37:15 GMT -5
Hang on, there were direct questions. Sorry. So in order: No, no, yes, and no.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 4, 2011 10:38:45 GMT -5
Okay. Then we can agree to disagree, and leave it at that?
|
|
|
Post by rookie on May 4, 2011 10:40:43 GMT -5
On this issue, sure.
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 4, 2011 10:41:14 GMT -5
Cool.
|
|