- 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
0
Posted on 9/18/20 at 9:52 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
is this a serious question
Yes. From a moral perspective both instances have the same intent and are equally bad and should be punished the same.
Why the disparate sentence based on luck (e.g., person B hits an unoccupied car whereas she hit an occupied car)?
If our laws are to reflect our collective morality (this is the ideal), why not treat both actions the same?
I'm looking for moral consistency here which a vast majority of folks do not have.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 10:00 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
If she's white I don't see how anyone could have a problem with this.
Always about race with you people.
She killed someone's grandma. Lock her up and throw away the key.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 10:02 am to jclem11
quote:
Why does the outcome of an action mean a harsher sentence?
Without question one of the goddamned worst questions I have ever seen posted here.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 10:08 am to AlonsoWDC
quote:
Without question one of the goddamned worst questions I have ever seen posted here.
It's a completely valid question and you morality is inconsistent.
If the intent is the same then both actions are equally bad. It follows that the punishments should be the same.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 11:03 am to jclem11
quote:
Why does the outcome of an action mean a harsher sentence?
If person B drives as drunk as her but hits an unoccupied parked car he can get away with pre-trial diversion (assuming first offense
Is this a serious question??? Of course outcome matters.
You really think drunk driving and hitting an unoccupied parked car is the same as drunk driving and killing someone??
Posted on 9/18/20 at 11:09 am to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
If the sentencing has been appealed in some way, I don't see why it is any different than an appeal for a lighter sentence.
This is the answer. While the government cannot appeal an acquittal, it can appeal a sentence just like the defendant. See, e.g., United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (1980) ( LINK); see also Appeals.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 12:02 pm to jclem11
quote:
If the intent is the same then both actions are equally bad
But in this case there really isn’t “intent”.
She didn’t “intend” to kill someone but she did. And that is much worse than “not intending” to hit an unoccupied car but hitting it anyway with no one getting hurt.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 12:17 pm to stout
Double Jeopardy
But I also don't trust a journalist's interpretation of any legal matter. It's almost always misstated or misunderstood in some manner.
Reading the last paragraph sounds like every sentence rendered has been vacated for some reason or another and the attorney for the offender is arguing that the original sentence (vacated) should stand given the time already served.
I would look at the actual Appellate decisions before forming an opinion.
But I also don't trust a journalist's interpretation of any legal matter. It's almost always misstated or misunderstood in some manner.
Reading the last paragraph sounds like every sentence rendered has been vacated for some reason or another and the attorney for the offender is arguing that the original sentence (vacated) should stand given the time already served.
I would look at the actual Appellate decisions before forming an opinion.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 5:48 pm to memphis tiger
quote:
You really think drunk driving and hitting an unoccupied parked car is the same as drunk driving and killing someone??
Yes — they are the same action and equally as bad. The outcome is irrelevant. They should be punished the same.
You morality is not consistent.
Drunk driving is either bar or it is not. If it we agree it is bad then it should be punished the same regardless of the outcome.
Posted on 9/18/20 at 5:51 pm to memphis tiger
There was an intent to drive drunk.
Driver B gets “lucky” and hits an unoccupied car and is let off with a slap on the wrist while she is “unlucky” and you fricks want to bury her under the jail.
Both drove drunk and both are equally bad. Outcome does not matter.
No one has yet to provide a sound argument why they should not be punished the same.
Just emotional appeals which are fallacious.
Driver B gets “lucky” and hits an unoccupied car and is let off with a slap on the wrist while she is “unlucky” and you fricks want to bury her under the jail.
Both drove drunk and both are equally bad. Outcome does not matter.
No one has yet to provide a sound argument why they should not be punished the same.
Just emotional appeals which are fallacious.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News