Drunk driver who killed 4 let off for being "too rich"

[Constable Reggie]

I'm actually not hugely disturbed by this, I feel the verdict is more fitting than just throwing a huge number at the kid because of that's how our justice system works. 4 people died, yes, but how is ruining the life of another person under the perception of justice going to assuage this?

The issue I have is the process of getting the verdict. Such a shitty excuse of a defense resulting in this, rather than sentences like this being commonplace for, you know, rehabilitory reasons, sets a chilling precedent for getting more sensible verdicts in the future.

REGGIE LIVES OH MAI GAH

yeah that 5 month ban was pretty ridiculous

Edited December 15, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[BK-201]

It seems the criminal justice system is willing to accept product of the environment defenses only when it's the privileged in question. Or perhaps I'm oversimplifying the whole issue but that's just what jumps out to me.

[Phoenix Wright]

I'm actually not hugely disturbed by this, I feel the verdict is more fitting than just throwing a huge number at the kid because of that's how our justice system works. 4 people died, yes, but how is ruining the life of another person under the perception of justice going to assuage this?

The issue I have is the process of getting the verdict. Such a shitty excuse of a defense resulting in this, rather than sentences like this being commonplace for, you know, rehabilitory reasons, sets a chilling precedent for getting more sensible verdicts in the future.

yeah that 5 month ban was pretty ridiculous

5 months? that is ridiculous. well, good to see ya back anyhow

[eclipse]

I think it would be fitting if the kid was forced to work for restitution money for the families he affected. It would be one way to teach him responsibility!

Edited December 15, 2013 by eclipse

[Rapier]

It seems the criminal justice system is willing to accept product of the environment defenses only when it's the privileged in question. Or perhaps I'm oversimplifying the whole issue but that's just what jumps out to me.

Product of the environment defenses are bullshit in every case possible. It's not like you're destined to become an outlaw because you're poor. That's a capital offense to the majority of the poor who live their lives with dignity and integrity.

The United States actually has a rather large problem,

[BK-201]

Product of the environment defenses are bullshit in every case possible. It's not like you're destined to become an outlaw because you're poor. That's a capital offense to the majority of the poor who live their lives with dignity and integrity.

Oh definitely, it's bullshit. It's just that the justice system lets it fly when it happens to be someone of privilege which is just despicable.

[blah the Prussian]

I'm actually not hugely disturbed by this, I feel the verdict is more fitting than just throwing a huge number at the kid because of that's how our justice system works. 4 people died, yes, but how is ruining the life of another person under the perception of justice going to assuage this?

The issue I have is the process of getting the verdict. Such a shitty excuse of a defense resulting in this, rather than sentences like this being commonplace for, you know, rehabilitory reasons, sets a chilling precedent for getting more sensible verdicts in the future.

yeah that 5 month ban was pretty ridiculous

Justice is not intended to assuage the fact that a crime happened. Yeah, putting him in jail won't bring the victims back, but it never was intended to. Frankly, that kid deserves to have his life ruined. He killed four people. Liberty and justice for all... what bullshit. This is one of the reasons I want to be a politician; to stop events like this from happening. Edited December 16, 2013 by blah2127

[dondon151]

Justice is not intended to assuage the fact that a crime happened. Yeah, putting him in jail won't bring the victims back, but it never was intended to. Frankly, that kid deserves to have his life ruined. He killed four people. Liberty and justice for all... what bullshit. This is one of the reasons I want to be a politician; to stop events like this from happening.

well, shit. i'm not voting for you, then. eye for an eye is such an antiquated idea of justice.

[blah the Prussian]

well, shit. i'm not voting for you, then. eye for an eye is such an antiquated idea of justice.

No. If it was an eye for an eye he would be dead. I meant going to jail( that will probably ruin your life). He killed four people. I am of the opinion that he should go to prison for ten to twenty years. He would never be accepted into college, never get a good job. That is what I meant.

[Rehab]

Depending on the extent to which you'd really want to ruin his life, you might actually make things worse, and for more people than just him. Solid evidence that relatively harsh sentences do measurable good, either in deterring potential offenders or in scaring current/past offenders straight, isn't the easiest thing to come by, and indeed there's some evidence that their effects may be negative at times in those respects.

There's also more than one way to think about criminal justice. Retributive justice- which focuses on who broke what laws, and how the severity of their crime should be reflected in their punishment- seems to be what you have in mind, and is an especially commonly held view of it in the U.S. But there's also restorative justice, which focuses on what the victims are left in need of, what the offenders can and should do for them, and what can be done to make sure the offender doesn't make the same mistake again. If you're really going into politics, I'd like to ask you to at least consider the data on whether doing what you have in mind will actually serve your purposes, and whether it's worth it.

(I wouldn't quite call what happened in this case "restorative justice" so much as "he came from wealth," to be sure, and that other people have received much worse sentences for doing much less is nothing if not an injustice of its own, but to me this particular case more illustrates that our penal system if it can even be called "our," singular, given literally every state in the U.S. has a different bloody one in many respects cough Texas cough is topsy-turvy inconsistent and often unfair, as opposed to the case being evidence that the system needs to be harsher overall)

[blah the Prussian]

Depending on the extent to which you'd really want to ruin his life, you might actually make things worse, and for more people than just him. Solid evidence that relatively harsh sentences do measurable good, either in deterring potential offenders or in scaring current/past offenders straight, isn't the easiest thing to come by, and indeed there's some evidence that their effects may be negative at times in those respects.

There's also more than one way to think about criminal justice. Retributive justice- which focuses on who broke what laws, and how the severity of their crime should be reflected in their punishment- seems to be what you have in mind, and is an especially commonly held view of it in the U.S. But there's also restorative justice, which focuses on what the victims are left in need of, what the offenders can and should do for them, and what can be done to make sure the offender doesn't make the same mistake again. If you're really going into politics, I'd like to ask you to at least consider the data on whether doing what you have in mind will actually serve your purposes, and whether it's worth it.

(I wouldn't quite call what happened in this case "restorative justice" so much as "he came from wealth," to be sure, and that other people have received much worse sentences for doing much less is nothing if not an injustice of its own, but to me this particular case more illustrates that our penal system if it can even be called "our," singular, given literally every state in the U.S. has a different bloody one in many respects cough Texas cough is topsy-turvy inconsistent and often unfair, as opposed to the case being evidence that the system needs to be harsher overall)

My purposes? They are to make America a place were everyone is treated equally under the law. I am framiliar with restorative justice, and I support it in many cases. However, I believe that for that form of justice to be invoked, the defendent must be worthy of a second chance. It is my belief that one who takes four lives deserves no second chances. I do, by the way, support making prison conditions better. Bottom line, nothing will bring the victims back, but you can have justice.

[Redwall]

It is my belief that one who takes four lives deserves no second chances.

It is obviously tragic that four people died from this kid's negligence. But we should judge actions by the intended consequences, and not the unintended consequences. This kid should be held accountable, perhaps by providing continual financial restitution to the victims' families, but he is no worse than someone who drove drunk (edit: and stole beer) without killing anyone by mistake.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Miikaya

[blah the Prussian]

It is obviously tragic that four people died from this kid's negligence. But we should judge actions by the intended consequences, and not the unintended consequences. This kid should be held accountable, perhaps by providing continual financial restitution to the victims' families, but he is no worse than someone who drove drunk (edit: and stole beer) without killing anyone by mistake.

That is laughable. Four people are dead and he is at fault. The difference between Ethan and that kid is the difference between manslaughter and theft. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Adolf Hitler wasn't evil because he wanted to kill 6 million Jews, he was evil because he killed 6 million Jews.

[Rewjeo]

No, Hitler is called evil because he was responsible for (actually far more than) 6 million deaths. He committed those actions in the first place because he was evil.

You're advocating suffering for the sake of suffering.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Rewjeo

[Redwall]

That is laughable. Four people are dead and he is at fault. The difference between Ethan and that kid is the difference between manslaughter and theft. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Read carefully. I did not dispute that intentional theft plus involuntary manslaughter caused by intentional DWI had worse consequences than intentional theft plus intentional DWI. My claim was that someone who commits the former set of actions is no worse as a person than someone who commits the latter set of actions.

Adolf Hitler wasn't evil because he wanted to kill 6 million Jews, he was evil because he killed 6 million Jews.

Hitler's desire and attempt to kill six million Jews were enough to make him evil. If those six million Jews managed to escape death, he'd still be evil because of his intent.

A while ago I encountered an example of why unintended consequences are a bad way of assessing moral blameworthiness. Suppose someone named Bob killed Bruce Wayne's two parents, with the unintended consequence being that Bruce Wayne becomes driven to become Batman and protect Gotham from wrongdoing. Suppose also that Batman saves B people. Do we therefore consider Bob a hero for saving B-2 people?

Edited December 17, 2013 by Miikaya

[blah the Prussian]

Read carefully. I did not dispute that intentional theft plus involuntary manslaughter caused by intentional DWI had worse consequences than intentional theft plus intentional DWI. My claim was that someone who commits the former set of actions is no worse as a person than someone who commits the latter set of actions. Hitler's desire and attempt to kill six million Jews were enough to make him evil. If those six million Jews managed to escape death, he'd still be evil because of his intent.A while ago I encountered an example of why unintended consequences are a bad way of assessing moral blameworthiness. Suppose someone named Bob killed Bruce Wayne's two parents, with the unintended consequence being that Bruce Wayne becomes driven to become Batman and protect Gotham from wrongdoing. Suppose also that Batman saves B people. Do we therefore consider Bob a hero for saving B-2 people?

I see now. You believe that a person's character is based on their intentions. I believe it is based on their actions. I suppose that this is what has led us to disagree on this matter. Of course Hitler would still have been evil if he had failed to execute the Holocaust. But I believe he is more evil now that he (somewhat) succeeded than he would be if he failed. The Batman example is good, but Bob did not personally save those people, Batman did. If Ethan had, say, sold the beer to someone who then killed four people in a crash, he should not be held accountable for the deaths. However, he directly caused their deaths, but Bob did not directly save them. There is a difference.

[eclipse]

My purposes? They are to make America a place were everyone is treated equally under the law. I am framiliar with restorative justice, and I support it in many cases. However, I believe that for that form of justice to be invoked, the defendent must be worthy of a second chance. It is my belief that one who takes four lives deserves no second chances. I do, by the way, support making prison conditions better. Bottom line, nothing will bring the victims back, but you can have justice.

"Justice" depends on the person you ask. My idea of justice would be for this kid to learn responsibility by getting a job and using his earnings to pay the affected families, as well as the store he stole the beer from (so that he can become a contributing, functioning member of society while hopefully telling his kids that drunk driving is really bad). One of the views that's missing from the report is the perpetrator's POV. It's obvious that his parents don't want him in jail, but how does he feel about this?

[Rapier]

It is obviously tragic that four people died from this kid's negligence. But we should judge actions by the intended consequences, and not the unintended consequences. This kid should be held accountable, perhaps by providing continual financial restitution to the victims' families, but he is no worse than someone who drove drunk (edit: and stole beer) without killing anyone by mistake.

Except it was not an accident by alcoholism. While it is true that he was drunk, he showed clear traits of psychopathy by killing four people as if he was playing GTA. This isn't something that drunk people do, it's something that mentally disturbed people do. It is not by negligence that this happened, it was by complete apathy to human lives.

@Rehab

Recidivism being high doesn't matter if you have a legal system that puts criminals into jail properly and maintains security. If the criminal goes back to prison it's by his own fault, and we have nothing to do with his poor life choices. What matters is that criminals stay behind bars, without harming citizens who are living their lifes fairly and without breaking laws. If they were sent to prison, it is solely for their fault, and their fault only. Being a product of the environment/poor/whatever is not an excuse. I think the essential is to make sure these people are away from harming any more innocents.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USA is reasonably safe for a huge country. I think alternatives to punishment, such as restorative justice, can be good, but I'm not in favor of lessening punishment or enforcement.

"Justice" depends on the person you ask. My idea of justice would be for this kid to learn responsibility by getting a job and using his earnings to pay the affected families, as well as the store he stole the beer from (so that he can become a contributing, functioning member of society while hopefully telling his kids that drunk driving is really bad). One of the views that's missing from the report is the perpetrator's POV. It's obvious that his parents don't want him in jail, but how does he feel about this?

I really doubt it is that simple, since we're speaking about a potential sociopath here and a dangerous person. Restorative justice seems to be a good punishment for him., but he shouldn't just "get a job and have responsibility be metaphorically poured down his throat".

[euklyd]

Recidivism being high doesn't matter if you have a legal system that puts criminals into jail properly and maintains security. If the criminal goes back to prison it's by his own fault, and we have nothing to do with his poor life choices. What matters is that criminals stay behind bars, without harming citizens who are living their lifes fairly and without breaking laws. If they were sent to prison, it is solely for their fault, and their fault only. Being a product of the environment/poor/whatever is not an excuse. I think the essential is to make sure these people are away from harming any more innocents.

Bullshit.

It is so much harder to be a "well-functioning" member of society after a stint in prison. There is such a stigma against felons in this country (and others); it is very hard for them to get back on their feet, and sometimes have little choice but to return to crime.

And that's not even to mention

Except it was not an accident by alcoholism. While it is true that he was drunk, he showed clear traits of psychopathy by killing four people as if he was playing GTA. This isn't something that drunk people do, it's something that mentally disturbed people do. It is not by negligence that this happened, it was by complete apathy to human lives.

-snip-

I really doubt it is that simple, since we're speaking about a potential sociopath here and a dangerous person. Restorative justice seems to be a good punishment for him., but he shouldn't just "get a job and have responsibility be metaphorically poured down his throat".

There was no such mention of psychopathy in either article; at best you are extrapolating without any evidence and at worst you are intentionally misrepresenting the available facts to suit your purposes. Assuming malicious intent is kind of a serious thing, and shouldn't be done lightly, IMO.

Back to the "current" topic (which is a bit off-topic, I guess), I am a proponent of restorative/rehabilitative justice as opposed to retributive justice. I dunno if that's actually what we ought to be talking about here, so I won't go into detail unless asked, I suppose.

[I.M. Gei]

There's an old "joke" in the U.S. that the only condition that prison cures is heterosexuality through liberal application of a penis to a prisoner's asshole

[blah the Prussian]

"Justice" depends on the person you ask. My idea of justice would be for this kid to learn responsibility by getting a job and using his earnings to pay the affected families, as well as the store he stole the beer from (so that he can become a contributing, functioning member of society while hopefully telling his kids that drunk driving is really bad). One of the views that's missing from the report is the perpetrator's POV. It's obvious that his parents don't want him in jail, but how does he feel about this?

Yes, it would be interesting to know the kid's opinion. Your kind of justice depends on the kid deserving a second chance. I would absolutely agree if he wounded someone, but manslaughter is not something forgiven by community service.

[Rapier]

Bullshit.

It is so much harder to be a "well-functioning" member of society after a stint in prison. There is such a stigma against felons in this country (and others); it is very hard for them to get back on their feet, and sometimes have little choice but to return to crime.

I wonder why there's a stigma against felons... Nobody would trust one, of course. And they're all justified in doing so.

I believe they should be given a chance to get back on their feet, since everyone deserves a second chance (or, better, a chance to redeem him/herself), but it's not like lessening punishment and enforcement will help. Like that drunk driver, for example. Lessening his punishment because "Oh, everyone makes mistakes and he's too young" is bullshit. He made poor life choices and deserves some sort of penalty for manslaughter. 10 years serving his sentence in prison would do, in my opinion, instead of 20.

Yes, it would be interesting to know the kid's opinion. Your kind of justice depends on the kid deserving a second chance. I would absolutely agree if he wounded someone, but manslaughter is not something forgiven by community service.

He's an irresponsible idiot who went too far. Why does his opinion matter?

[Rewjeo]

Lessening his punishment because "Oh, everyone makes mistakes and he's too young" is bullshit. He's an irresponsible idiot who went too far. Why does his opinion matter?

Yes, it is as bullshit as lessening it because he is too rich. But if he's already in a place where imprisoning him for a decade won't do any good for the world, why bother? You're saying that people should be locked up unless there is a reason not to, it seems, while we are (or at least I am) saying that we shouldn't bother locking people up unless there is a reason to. After all, why cause more pain if it doesn't lead to less pain down the road? And yes, it is possible that he really should have been punished more severely. None of us here know all the details as far as I can tell. But maybe an accident is just an accident.

Just a general question, too: How many people here would say that the punishment for drunk driving should be the same regardless of the consequences, on the grounds that everyone is acting with the same disregard for human life?

[Rapier]

Yes, it is as bullshit as lessening it because he is too rich. But if he's already in a place where imprisoning him for a decade won't do any good for the world, why bother? You're saying that people should be locked up unless there is a reason not to, it seems, while we are (or at least I am) saying that we shouldn't bother locking people up unless there is a reason to. After all, why cause more pain if it doesn't lead to less pain down the road? And yes, it is possible that he really should have been punished more severely. None of us here know all the details as far as I can tell. But maybe an accident is just an accident.

Just a general question, too: How many people here would say that the punishment for drunk driving should be the same regardless of the consequences, on the grounds that everyone is acting with the same disregard for human life?

Why worry so much about his well being? Punishments such as his are meant to be harsh, not light. Light punishments break the whole intent behind it and, worse, give crimes a feel of unpunishment. Causing him pain is natural in the proccess, it's not like he's in a spa. And he brought it onto himself.

Please note that I don't want him to suffer. I just want him to pay for everything fairly and compensate for his crime without making his punishment too harsh or too light, but proportional. He killed four people. How grave is this? Surely he deserves a harsher punishment than the one he was given, or else he won't learn that actions have consequences (and how harsh those consequences are). Not to mention it is not fair to have privileges over others who got the full sentence just because "he's too pampered"; either lower the punishment for everyone else or have him serve it.

I believe the punishment should become higher depending of the consequences, because crashing into a wall is less serious than seriously injuring or killing a few people. They're all acting with disregard to human life, but giving a harsh sentence to someone who was just drunk driving and had lighter consequences seems too extreme to me.

[Rehab]

The U.S. is relatively safe from certain points of view, but there's more violence even relative to our population than in.. a lot of Europe, at least. Did I mention our prisons are stuffed and generally a problem?

Recidivism doesn't matter? I'm sorry, but that idea has some rather depressing implications.

Recidivism isn't only a problem for the offenders, though I think it ought to be obviously more preferable to have more productive, contributing members of society than to have less, if we can help it. Recidivism also matters, obviously, for the people who become the offender's next victims once they're out. I'd think there would be an intuitive link between lower rates of recidivism and less victims, less crime period, and less resources spent on punishing them and dealing with the collateral damage.

If we really don't take any care in how harsh the justice system is, we may run the risk of making it unfair from the perspective of the people it punishes, who are disproportionately likely to be poor (cough like half of our prisoners are black and poor and also in for relatively trifling violations cough). In turn, if they see our society as a bullshit place to be, a place where their lives get ruined for single mistakes (which adult men are statistically much more likely to commit when they're young than when they're going into middling age, with a drop in recorded crimes even as early as they reach their thirties), there may be a danger that they'll see themselves as having less of a stake in that society overall, that they must be ruthless to survive, and that they therefore may feel less of an obligation to respect both the laws themselves and who the laws ostensibly serve to protect. If more crime is committed under our laws than might be under less strict ones, if more harm is done overall, it begs the question of whether the laws are actually protecting us as best they could.

Again, it's nutty not only that Couch got off so light, but that he got off where somebody with less money would've been significantly more likely to get a prison sentence. That's a problem on enough levels, especially in the U.S., that simply guaranteeing harsher punishments in general runs the risk of catching more people in harsher crossfires, quite likely including many who it would be harder to argue deserve the same as we think Couch does, and of those, almost certainly many with far fewer resources available (money, lawyers, social clout in general) to soften the blow with. I think it's just plain hard to guarantee Couch would've got what you'd consider an appropriate punishment by simply making our system harsher (it's really pretty harsh as it is, honest), at least without inevitably making things worse for more vulnerable people than him.

Admittedly, there may also be a risk that in letting Couch off, people who end up punished more for roughly the same crimes (or less) also feel like they have less stake in our society, because (obviously) they got a harsher treatment than a dumb rich kid who, at the end of the day, killed 4 people, and from their perspective nobody cared about not ruining their lives or about their rehabilitation (nyuck etc), and I do think something ought to be done about things like that. (if I could only find where to bloody start)

But it just makes me kinda nervous when responses to a farce of a case like this include "people like this deserve to have their lives ruined," and "recidivism doesn't matter," because those responses may affect more than just these farcical cases.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Rehab