- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: should this man have to serve his sentence?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:47 am to Jay Quest
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:47 am to Jay Quest
quote:
He needs to be in prison for punishment's sake and not rehabilitation.
Meh I disagree. Prison is for non productive members of society who break the law.
This person does not need to be in prison. Community service, probation, or something lighter is in order. However putting this man in prison is the last thing that should be done.
0
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:49 am to Scruffy
quote:
but why lock him away? What is the purpose of that?
What was the purpose twenty years ago? Punishment
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:49 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:WTF? You can't be serious.
For me, this is not a case study of government incompetence.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:50 am to ShortyRob
This thread is pretty much proof that we are a nation of statists.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:51 am to ShortyRob
quote:
WTF? You can't be serious.
Yea, very serious. I consider the death of a child to be serious business.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:52 am to ShortyRob
quote:
This thread is pretty much proof that we are a nation of statists.
That is silly beyond measure.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:53 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:Again, you're completely missing the fricking point.
Yea, very serious. I consider the death of a child to be serious business.
The state fricks up MURDER trials all the time. It doesn't get do overs then either.
Jeebus. You know who should "pay the price" for this frick up? Whomever failed 19 years ago!!!
If I were the parents, THAT is who would draw my fire.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:54 am to Jay Quest
quote:No. It really isn't. People in this nation have completely lost sight of WHY we set out to restrict the state and set the balance of justice on the side of the citizen.
That is silly beyond measure.
We talk about the state now like it's a parent and we're its children.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:56 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Again, you're completely missing the fricking point.
Someone is missing the point here but it is not me. By demanding this man pay the price he was assigned to pay I am in no way releasing the state from culpability.
But I don't believe their culpability washes away his crime.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:56 am to Jay Quest
quote:
What was the purpose twenty years ago? Punishment
His punishment is to be removed from society for two years?
And my question is, why is locking him away the only viable punishment?
This is a bit of a change in topic, but if the prison system in this country is as screwed up as we all believe, why do we keep doing the same thing?
Posted on 7/15/14 at 8:58 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:Functionally, you are. Whether you realize it or not, you are.
Someone is missing the point here but it is not me. By demanding this man pay the price he was assigned to pay I am in no way releasing the state from culpability.
quote:When a prosecutor is incompetent and a murderer walks, the prosecutor's incompetence doesn't wash away the murderer's crime. Hell, we can find fricking video of the murder happening later on and STILL not go after the guy.
But I don't believe their culpability washes away his crime.
There's a reason for that. A reason that seems wholly lost on people these days.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:00 am to Scruffy
quote:
And is that not a problem?
No. We make all kinds of decisions as a society that aren't always the most pragmatic ones. The constitution is full of rules that, were we to discard them, we could "get more done."
quote:
We have such a "fire and brimstone" approach to punishment.
Agree. Too much punishment of non-violent offenders. But it is what it is and that's what the public wants.
quote:
As a country, we have a recidivism rate of ~60%. That is terrible and, IMO, a sign that we are going about this all wrong.
Sure. But as long as we're putting our "results-oriented" hats on here, we could just kill everyone who commits nasty crimes. You would probably call that inequitable or unjust, which are the exact same arguments being invoked when the other side says "negligent homicide is negligent homicide; you can't just write that off. He needs to be punished."
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:02 am to Scruffy
quote:
And my question is, why is locking him away the only viable punishment?
I agree its not the only viable punishment. Had he been the cause of an unfortunate accident I would agree incarceration may not be in line. But a life was lost here. We cannot discount that lost one iota because of the circumstances that followed.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:05 am to Jay Quest
quote:
I agree its not the only viable punishment. Had he been the cause of an unfortunate accident I would agree incarceration may not be in line. But a life was lost here. We cannot discount that lost one iota because of the circumstances that followed.
What if, due to incompetence, the state has lost his BAC test, so he was acquitted but then, 19 years later, found it and it was a .15? The following sentence would STILL be true.
quote:
But a life was lost here. We cannot discount that lost one iota because of the circumstances that followed.
But of course, we set a high standard for the state. It shouldn't get a 20 year pass on the life of a citizen just because it fricked up.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:05 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Hell, we can find fricking video of the murder happening later on and STILL not go after the guy.
Because that wrong can't be righted. This one can be. There is no correlation, other than government failure, between your example and this particular case.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:07 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:Why do you suppose the founders set it up that way? It was pretty much GUARANTEED to mean some murderers would go free.
Because that wrong can't be righted.
quote:See above.
This one can be
quote:Um. That's because you seem to think the ONLY reason we don't allow double jeopardy is because someone wrote it into law. The WHY of it seems totally lost upon you.
There is no correlation, other than government failure, between your example and this particular case
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:07 am to Tigerlaff
quote:The public wants a lot of things. That does not mean we shouldn't attempt to pursue the correct course, despite the public's objections.
Agree. Too much punishment of non-violent offenders. But it is what it is and that's what the public wants.
quote:It depends on the crime. There is no such thing as black and white. We should not view society as such.
Sure. But as long as we're putting our "results-oriented" hats on here, we could just kill everyone who commits nasty crimes. You would probably call that inequitable or unjust
quote:Which is another case of black and white.
the exact same arguments being invoked when the other side says "negligent homicide is negligent homicide; you can't just write that off. He needs to be punished."
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:08 am to Scruffy
quote:
The public wants a lot of things. That does not mean we shouldn't attempt to pursue the correct course, despite the public's objections.
Don't you see that this is the mindset of a "central planner?"
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:08 am to ShortyRob
quote:
What if, due to incompetence, the state has lost his BAC test, so he was acquitted but then, 19 years later, found it and it was a .15? The following sentence would STILL be true.
Once acquitted we can never revisit his crime. That's not the case here so your premise doesn't fit. He was found guilty.
Look Shorty, I'm as outraged at the state's failure as you are but I'm more outraged at this man being the cause of a child's death.
We differ there.
Posted on 7/15/14 at 9:10 am to Holden Caulfield
quote:
Because that wrong can't be righted. This one can be
Not necessarily.
To me, 2 years in prison upon being convicted =/= 2 years in prison 19 years after the fact.
To me, that would fall under "cruel and unusual." Let the guy be free for 19 years, get an education, a job, and become a productive member of society, and THEN throw him in prison for 2 years?
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News