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

[MJThom_2009]

Unbelievable, I blame the parents because they never teach their kid whats right and whats wrong. Also what about those commercials about driving and driving. They should at least tell you about them.

[blah the Prussian]

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.

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

His opinion does not matter, I just think it would be interesting to know.

[Rapier]

@Rehab

True, it was foolish of me to say that it did not matter. My wording also wasn't spectacular.

To lesser crimes, such as drunk driving, I don't see why a harsh punishment should be given since, as you said, prison tends to change people (in-short). To harsher crimes, such as Couch's, I believe his sentence should be harsh to compensate for his crime, even if it means "ruining his life" (he brought it on himself and is a potentially dangerous citizen, so I believe it is justified that he stays behind bars).

I don't agree with the approach of softening his sentence. In his case, what would restorative justice do? If he had stolen something, then I would understand. However, how is he going to restore anything for four dead people or for their parents who lost them permanently? Do you agree that receiving psychological treatment for 10 years outside prison with privileges paid by his father is a fair and fitting punishment for what he did? This is not a punishment at all. It misses the point of punishment.

That said, I don't want to "ruin his life". I want to make sure that he compensates for what he did, as harsh as it may be. If his life is ruined in the proccess, it is his fault that he brought this onto himself (I don't accept the "oh, he was too young" excuse because a lot of 17 year-old teenagers already have some degree of responsibility).

If you answer this post, can I also ask you to share with me an article about those "lesser crimes and harsh punishments", bearing in mind that I know very little about what's going on with it in the USA?

[blah the Prussian]

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.

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".

Care to elaborate on what you mean by " restorative justice"?

[Rewjeo]

I don't agree with the approach of softening his sentence. In his case, what would restorative justice do? If he had stolen something, then I would understand. However, how is he going to restore anything for four dead people or for their parents who lost them permanently? Do you agree that receiving psychological treatment for 10 years outside prison with privileges paid by his father is a fair and fitting punishment for what he did? This is not a punishment at all. It misses the point of punishment.

That said, I don't want to "ruin his life". I want to make sure that he compensates for what he did, as harsh as it may be.

@bold: You're saying (or, well, I'm inferring) that he cannot make up for what he's done, but then asking for him to be made to compensate for what he's done? I don't understand the difference here.

@italics: I don't really disagree with what you're saying here. What I'm saying is that possibly there is no point to punishment in this case. This is all hypothetical, of course, and regardless of what punishment I feel he deserves, I think everyone can agree that "affluenza" is a terrible reason for what sentence he got.

Going back to the consequences thing: If two identical people make the conscious decision to drink and then drive, but luck has it that one hits a wall and one hits a person, what value does society stand to benefit from either being punished more severely by the law than the other? I personally don't see how society stands to benefit anything.

[blah the Prussian]

@bold: You're saying (or, well, I'm inferring) that he cannot make up for what he's done, but then asking for him to be made to compensate for what he's done? I don't understand the difference here.

@italics: I don't really disagree with what you're saying here. What I'm saying is that possibly there is no point to punishment in this case. This is all hypothetical, of course, and regardless of what punishment I feel he deserves, I think everyone can agree that "affluenza" is a terrible reason for what sentence he got.

Going back to the consequences thing: If two identical people make the conscious decision to drink and then drive, but luck has it that one hits a wall and one hits a person, what value does society stand to benefit from either being punished more severely by the law than the other? I personally don't see how society stands to benefit anything.

What does society stand to benefit? What did society stand to benefit from executing Saddam Hussein? Nothing. Did it mean we should have let him go? Hell no. Just because a criminal poses a threat to society, doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up.

[Rapier]

@bold: You're saying (or, well, I'm inferring) that he cannot make up for what he's done, but then asking for him to be made to compensate for what he's done? I don't understand the difference here.

@italics: I don't really disagree with what you're saying here. What I'm saying is that possibly there is no point to punishment in this case. This is all hypothetical, of course, and regardless of what punishment I feel he deserves, I think everyone can agree that "affluenza" is a terrible reason for what sentence he got.

Going back to the consequences thing: If two identical people make the conscious decision to drink and then drive, but luck has it that one hits a wall and one hits a person, what value does society stand to benefit from either being punished more severely by the law than the other? I personally don't see how society stands to benefit anything.

I am saying that he can't restore what he destroyed on this case. Compensating goes on a complete different level and is different from restoring. It is like breaking a vase; you can either repair it (restore) or give the owner the money to buy another in case it's shattered badly into pieces (compensate). I phrased it with a literal mindset, so that's why you must have mistaken me.

Why do you believe there is no point to punishment in this case? I would be contented if only he did something productive there in 10 years and that feels like a punishmen, such as communitary work (I am not sure if this term exists in english) or something

Also, about the consequences thing, in my viewpoint both should be penalized for drunk driving, the difference is that one receives an extra charge of homicide while the other receives an extra charge of destruction of property (if there is such a thing. I'm not an expert in law). I just prefer to work with actions and consequences than hypothesis and speculation. To be honest, I can't answer your question.

What does society stand to benefit? What did society stand to benefit from executing Saddam Hussein? Nothing. Did it mean we should have let him go? Hell no. Just because a criminal poses a threat to society, doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up.

Saddam Hussein indirectly helped the Al'Qaeda, which poses a threat to society. So, yes, they were benefitted from his death, though to a lesser extent than Bin Laden's (many wonder if it really happened, and I won't discuss about it. For those who adamantly believes it's all a ruse, just take this as an example).

Edited December 18, 2013 by Rapier

[BK-201]

What does society stand to benefit? What did society stand to benefit from executing Saddam Hussein? Nothing. Did it mean we should have let him go? Hell no. Just because a criminal poses a threat to society, doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up.

You kinda missed the argument. The argument was in regards as whether to punish intent or consequences hence why he used two people who did the exact same action.

[Rapier]

Most would argue that drunk drivers have no intention of crashing into walls/killing people/etc., so I am not sure if we can discuss about it while taking in mind that the drunk drivers may not have the intention of commiting these specified crimes. I defend that there is no way to punish them for intent.

So, until one of these crimes are commited, I believe they should only receive the penalty for drunk driving (which includes the risks of commiting a crime or crimes), instead of assuming that they should receive the worst case scenario penalty for an hypothetical crime that they could've commited.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Rapier

[BK-201]

Most would argue that drunk drivers have no intention of crashing into walls/killing people/etc., so I am not sure if we can discuss about it while taking in mind that the drunk drivers may not have the intention of commiting these specified crimes. I defend that there is no way to punish them for intent.

So, until one of these crimes are commited, I believe they should only receive the penalty for drunk driving (which includes the risks of commiting a crime or crimes), instead of assuming that they should receive the worst case scenario penalty for an hypothetical crime that they could've commited.

Right and from that Rewjeo is arguing punishment is therefore oriented to circumstance rather than intent. I'm not saying this is necessarily true or a good model, but this is just what I extrapolated from his argument. Meanwhile Blah for some reason either strawmanning or misinterpreting Rewjeo's argument brought up Saddam Hussein.

Edited December 18, 2013 by BK-201

[Rapier]

Right and from that Rewjeo is arguing punishment is therefore oriented to circumstance rather than intent. I'm not saying this is necessarily true or a good model, but this is just what I extrapolated from his argument. Meanwhile Blah for some reason either strawmanning or misinterpreting Rewjeo's argument brought up Saddam Hussein.

I'm saying that you can't give someone punishment oriented by intent because you can't prove that the crime was intended. It is but an assumption, and a serious one.

The most you can do is charge him for attempt of murder (but then again, what about the other crimes that he could've commited while drunk? Is it not extreme to give a harsh penalty to a drunk driver who ended doing nothing, lucky or not, and treat him like a murderer?)

[blah the Prussian]

Right and from that Rewjeo is arguing punishment is therefore oriented to circumstance rather than intent. I'm not saying this is necessarily true or a good model, but this is just what I extrapolated from his argument. Meanwhile Blah for some reason either strawmanning or misinterpreting Rewjeo's argument brought up Saddam Hussein.

Fair enough. I was using that as an example of a time when someone was brought to trial for no reason other than justice. In the example used by Rapier, someone killed a person and are guilty of manslaughter. I believe they should be punished accordingly.

[Rewjeo]

I am saying that he can't restore what he destroyed on this case. Compensating goes on a complete different level and is different from restoring. It is like breaking a vase; you can either repair it (restore) or give the owner the money to buy another in case it's shattered badly into pieces (compensate). I phrased it with a literal mindset, so that's why you must have mistaken me.

But then how does imprisonment compensate anyone for anything?

Why do you believe there is no point to punishment in this case? I would be contented if only he did something productive there in 10 years and that feels like a punishmen, such as communitary work (I am not sure if this term exists in english) or something

"Community service" would probably be the term you're looking for.

Oh, I don't think that there is no point to punishment in this case. Even ignoring specifically this boy, fear of retribution can honestly be an effective use of a law. Punishment here can serve at least to discourage others from doing this kind of thing in the future. The use of "affluenza" as a successful defense is especially bad on that front. But it is possible (not probable or even likely, just within the realm of physical possibility) that the individual himself might be affected enough by the situation that putting him in jail would do nothing good to change him, and perhaps even prevent him from contributing to society, isn't it?

I'm saying that you can't give someone punishment oriented by intent because you can't prove that the crime was intended. It is but an assumption, and a serious one.

The most you can do is charge him for attempt of murder (but then again, what about the other crimes that he could've commited while drunk? Is it not extreme to give a harsh penalty to a drunk driver who ended doing nothing, lucky or not, and treat him like a murderer?)

An awful lot of crimes are clearly intended, and I certainly doubt that he unintentionally stole alcohol, drank it, and then drove. I mean, the legal system already accounts for intent often - for instance the various degrees of murder and manslaughter.

There was nothing to be gained by keeping Saddam Hussein alive and there would have been some loss had he been kept alive, i.e. resources and outrage. I have no issue with his execution, but that has less to do with what he did before and more to do with what would have come after.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Rewjeo

[dondon151]

What does society stand to benefit? What did society stand to benefit from executing Saddam Hussein? Nothing. Did it mean we should have let him go? Hell no. Just because a criminal poses a threat to society, doesn't mean we shouldn't lock them up.

at least you didn't compare this kid to hitler.

all matters of intent aside, at least a young individual in this culture can be rehabilitated.

[Rapier]

all matters of intent aside, at least a young individual in this culture can be rehabilitated.

Am I misreading it or are you agreeing with the sentence?

[dondon151]

no, you are definitely misreading it.

[blah the Prussian]

at least you didn't compare this kid to hitler.

all matters of intent aside, at least a young individual in this culture can be rehabilitated.

I am not comparing him with Hussein. I am using an example were there was someone who posed no threat to society, but we punished him for the sake of justice. This kid should go to jail for justice.