Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Rich Kid Ethan Couch Gets 10 Years Probation for 4 DUI Kills

66 replies to this topic
Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Corverra ♢

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#31

Posted 16 December 2013 - 09:43 PM

If you have money you get much lighter sentences. If a 20 year sentence was sought that typically means a plea bargain is available for as little as half the time. With good behavior you can get out in half that. So he could have been out in five years of jail. Ten years probation isn't a bad compromise.
What happened is tragic but this kid is no hardened criminal. What is the use of paying to jail him?

I must agree with you. He isn't no hardened criminal.

CallTheCoroner
  • CallTheCoroner

    Have you ever been dying of thirst, and smelled rain?

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2012
  • United-States

#32

Posted 16 December 2013 - 09:54 PM

 

If you have money you get much lighter sentences. If a 20 year sentence was sought that typically means a plea bargain is available for as little as half the time. With good behavior you can get out in half that. So he could have been out in five years of jail. Ten years probation isn't a bad compromise.
What happened is tragic but this kid is no hardened criminal. What is the use of paying to jail him?

I must agree with you. He isn't no hardened criminal.

 

So, he is a hardened criminal?

  • F4L? likes this

Winning001
  • Winning001

    Join the cool people. Set it to North Korea today!

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2013
  • North-Korea

#33

Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:19 PM

Ah....the US justice system. Probably as flawed as the Obamacare website


Moonshield
  • Moonshield

    amplifier worship

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2002
  • Mongolia
  • Best Senior Moderator 2013

#34

Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:35 PM

 

 

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

 

It's not. You should be 100% responsible while under the influence of any drug and/or substance. You decided to put it in your body, you made the choice to use it, you should be held responsible.

 

 

Science disagrees. At that age, at your age even, the brain hasn't fully matured yet. Which is something that should be taken into account during sentencing.

 

 

His brain hasn't matured enough for him to take responsibility for killing 4 people?

 

I like you, Raavi, but that to me is bullsh*t. I've known since I was 13 that drunk driving and drinking in general is dangerous, you're also taught when you go for your permit/license that it's harmful. 

 

 

Then I guess by Raavi's logic, his parents should be tried for vehicular manslaughter.


CallTheCoroner
  • CallTheCoroner

    Have you ever been dying of thirst, and smelled rain?

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2012
  • United-States

#35

Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:39 PM

If their 'brains not being fully matured yet' is that much of a problem, they shouldn't be able to f*cking operate vehicles. If he can drive a car, he should know the do's and dont's of driving one, sorry. That's a f*cking sad excuse.

  • F4L? and LubeMan like this

UtricularEwe001
  • UtricularEwe001

    I am a Pirate

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • None

#36

Posted 16 December 2013 - 10:43 PM

So you are telling me that I can run over 4 people and get away with it if I'm rich.

brb.

Pathetic.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#37

Posted 16 December 2013 - 11:12 PM Edited by Raavi, 16 December 2013 - 11:14 PM.

 

His brain hasn't matured enough for him to take responsibility for killing 4 people?

 

I like you, Raavi, but that to me is bullsh*t. I've known since I was 13 that drunk driving and drinking in general is dangerous, you're also taught when you go for your permit/license that it's harmful. 

 

 

Then I guess by Raavi's logic, his parents should be tried for vehicular manslaughter.

 

 

Sorry but that is hogwash. I said his not fully matured frontal lobe should be taken into account (as should a myriad of other things), I never said it should be the deciding factor. His parents are irrelevant in this equation, it's his own actions that lead to him standing trial, not his parents'. You can of course argue that indirectly due to their lack of proper parenting his decision making skills were impaired, but that's a defence that never would nor should hold up.

 

@Vylnor Not everyone is the same, therefore it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. There are several tests available that can help determine the level of maturity in a person. Tests that again should be taken into account, but should not be decisive.


CallTheCoroner
  • CallTheCoroner

    Have you ever been dying of thirst, and smelled rain?

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2012
  • United-States

#38

Posted 16 December 2013 - 11:15 PM

I am 100% certain Raavi is this kids lawyer...


36Chambers
  • 36Chambers

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jul 2012

#39

Posted 16 December 2013 - 11:18 PM

As some have mentioned, if he can drive a car, which is practically a weapon, he should take full responsibility to what harm he inflicts on others. Being drunk while driving isn't going to help his case either.

It's a damn shame this kid didn't get at least get some time. Also, being a victim of "affluenza" is ridiculous.

This reminds me somewhat of Dave Chappelle, when in one of his skits, he talks about his rich white friend who got away from a police officer for speeding by saying, "I didn't know I couldn't do that."

CallTheCoroner
  • CallTheCoroner

    Have you ever been dying of thirst, and smelled rain?

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2012
  • United-States

#40

Posted 16 December 2013 - 11:20 PM

This reminds me somewhat of Dave Chappelle, when in one of his skits, he talks about his rich white friend who got away from a police officer for speeding by saying, "I didn't know I couldn't do that."

  • 36Chambers likes this

biggsull
  • biggsull

    Foot Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013

#41

Posted 16 December 2013 - 11:54 PM Edited by biggsull, 16 December 2013 - 11:56 PM.

 

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

 

It's not. You should be 100% responsible while under the influence of any drug and/or substance. You decided to put it in your body, you made the choice to use it, you should be held responsible.

 

 

Science disagrees. At that age, at your age even, the brain hasn't fully matured yet. Which is something that should be taken into account during sentencing.

 

 

It actually doesnt become fully developed until about 25. The last part of the brain to mature is the one which allows you to think in detail about the consequences of your actions.

 

It should also be taken into account involuntary manslaughter, like spinning out by losing control without being drunk only nets an adult a couple years most of the time.

 

He should spend at least 2 years in jail and have it effect him for the rest of his life.(as in, no cushy jobs because hes a criminal and cant be trusted)


D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#42

Posted 16 December 2013 - 11:58 PM Edited by D4 Damager, 17 December 2013 - 12:02 AM.

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

Sorry but where do you get your figures from here?

 

 

  • Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs (Section 3A Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988)
    Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both; and disqualified for a minimum of two years;
  • Causing death by dangerous driving (Section 1 RTA 1988)
    Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, and disqualified for a minimum of two years

 

 

Note the difference between "careless" and "dangerous". "Dangerous" is more serious, and as such you are more likely to face stringent punishments for driving whilst impaired. Consumption of drugs or alcohol also puts your case into the top sentencing band...

 

Here's an example:
 

 

R v Pell [2010] 2 Cr.App.R.(s.) 103 - The victim as {sic} a woman aged 88 who was trying to cross a single carriageway road subject to a 30 mph speed limit.  A breath test conducted an hour and a quarter after the accident resulted in a reading of 76 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath.  Calculations of D's speed indicated that he had been travelling at 44 mph.  He accepted that he had been drinking heavily on the day before the incident.  He said that he had been driving at about 45 mph, the sun had been in his eyes and he had attempted to brake but his tyres had locked.  It was shown that at the time of the accident the sun would have been behind him and there were no brake marks on the road.  He had an appalling history of driving offences.  A sentence of 10 years imprisonment after a guilty plea was severe but not manifestly excessive given his high level of culpability and his appalling record.

 


Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#43

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:02 AM

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

Sorry but where do you get your figures from here?

 

 

  • Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs (Section 3A Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988)
    Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both; and disqualified for a minimum of two years;
  • Causing death by dangerous driving (Section 1 RTA 1988)
    Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, and disqualified for a minimum of two years

 

 

Note the difference between "careless" and "dangerous". "Dangerous" is more serious, and as such you are more likely to face stringent punishments for driving whilst impaired. Consumption of drugs or alcohol also puts your case into the top sentencing band...

 

It appears they changed it. 7 years ago when I applied for a driving license it had what I previously stated in the forms you got. I was going to say that maybe my information was out of date, but well, I don't really care.


D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#44

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:21 AM

 

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

Sorry but where do you get your figures from here?

 

 

  • Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs (Section 3A Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988)
    Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both; and disqualified for a minimum of two years;
  • Causing death by dangerous driving (Section 1 RTA 1988)
    Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, and disqualified for a minimum of two years

 

 

Note the difference between "careless" and "dangerous". "Dangerous" is more serious, and as such you are more likely to face stringent punishments for driving whilst impaired. Consumption of drugs or alcohol also puts your case into the top sentencing band...

 

It appears they changed it. 7 years ago when I applied for a driving license it had what I previously stated in the forms you got. I was going to say that maybe my information was out of date, but well, I don't really care.

 

You applied for a driving licence in 2006. This offence has been written in law since 1992. The maximum sentence has been increased, but even when you applied there was no way that you would have ever faced a smaller punishment than somebody who was sober since drugs and alcohol are both aggravating factors.

 

And I'm not surprised that you proclaim to not care, because the rest of the your post definitely points to you talking total bollocks.


Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#45

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:33 AM

 

 

 

In Britain if you run someone over whilst sober, you are faced with a 10 year jail sentence and an automatic driving ban. If you run someone over whilst under the influence and you have no points on your license, you get to keep your license and face a smaller sentence. I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I always found it amusing. I don't think being drunk is a valid enough excuse for diminished responsibility when turning people into pancakes via an automobile.

 

The reactionary side of me says that they should suffer even more draconian sentences than standard hit and run drivers purely for their INSOLENCE!

Sorry but where do you get your figures from here?

 

 

  • Causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs (Section 3A Road Traffic Act (RTA) 1988)
    Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both; and disqualified for a minimum of two years;
  • Causing death by dangerous driving (Section 1 RTA 1988)
    Penalty: 1 to 14 years in prison, and disqualified for a minimum of two years

 

 

Note the difference between "careless" and "dangerous". "Dangerous" is more serious, and as such you are more likely to face stringent punishments for driving whilst impaired. Consumption of drugs or alcohol also puts your case into the top sentencing band...

 

It appears they changed it. 7 years ago when I applied for a driving license it had what I previously stated in the forms you got. I was going to say that maybe my information was out of date, but well, I don't really care.

 

You applied for a driving licence in 2006. This offence has been written in law since 1992. The maximum sentence has been increased, but even when you applied there was no way that you would have ever faced a smaller punishment than somebody who was sober since drugs and alcohol are both aggravating factors.

 

And I'm not surprised that you proclaim to not care, because the rest of the your post definitely points to you talking total bollocks.

 

I have to be honest man, this is a really odd thing to get so worked up about. I'd take a day off if I were you, it's not good for your heart.


CallTheCoroner
  • CallTheCoroner

    Have you ever been dying of thirst, and smelled rain?

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2012
  • United-States

#46

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:34 AM

...and people still preach equality...


D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#47

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:42 AM

I have to be honest man, this is a really odd thing to get so worked up about. I'd take a day off if I were you, it's not good for your heart.

 

What an odd thing to say. Take a day off from what exactly? And demolishing the false claims of the feeble-minded has actually been proven to be good for the soul -- which I believe may outweigh the potential risk to my heart of continuing to converse with you.


Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#48

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:44 AM Edited by Nale Dixon, 17 December 2013 - 12:48 AM.

 

I have to be honest man, this is a really odd thing to get so worked up about. I'd take a day off if I were you, it's not good for your heart.

 

What an odd thing to say. Take a day off from what exactly? And demolishing the false claims of the feeble-minded has actually been proven to be good for the soul -- which I believe may outweigh the potential risk to my heart of continuing to converse with you.

 

My my, Aren't we the pretentious little buffoon? Go get a girlfriend, kid.


D4 Damager
  • D4 Damager

    Listening to the Mandolin Rain...

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Aug 2013
  • None

#49

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:53 AM Edited by D4 Damager, 17 December 2013 - 12:54 AM.

 

 

I have to be honest man, this is a really odd thing to get so worked up about. I'd take a day off if I were you, it's not good for your heart.

 

What an odd thing to say. Take a day off from what exactly? And demolishing the false claims of the feeble-minded has actually been proven to be good for the soul -- which I believe may outweigh the potential risk to my heart of continuing to converse with you.

 

My my, Aren't wee the pretentious little buffoon? Go get a girlfriend, kid.

 

Nope I'm none of those things. And my girlfriend is lovely. She's here right now actually laughing at you.

 

Anyhow, I'm going to take some of my own advice and leave the topic. Since we've already gone far away from the matter at hand you'd be quite welcome to take send me a PM if you have anything further to say -- speaking with you has been a delight.


Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#50

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:55 AM

 

 

 

I have to be honest man, this is a really odd thing to get so worked up about. I'd take a day off if I were you, it's not good for your heart.

 

What an odd thing to say. Take a day off from what exactly? And demolishing the false claims of the feeble-minded has actually been proven to be good for the soul -- which I believe may outweigh the potential risk to my heart of continuing to converse with you.

 

My my, Aren't wee the pretentious little buffoon? Go get a girlfriend, kid.

 

Nope I'm none of those things. And my girlfriend is lovely. She's here right now actually laughing at you.

 

Anyhow, I'm going to take some of my own advice and leave the topic. Since we've already gone far away from the matter at hand you'd be quite welcome to take send me a PM if you have anything further to say -- speaking with you has been a delight.

 

Nah man, you definitely don't have a girlfriend. Your face painted bucket doesn't count.


Sting4S
  • Sting4S

    ♢ Corverra ♢

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#51

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:56 AM

If you have money you get much lighter sentences. If a 20 year sentence was sought that typically means a plea bargain is available for as little as half the time. With good behavior you can get out in half that. So he could have been out in five years of jail. Ten years probation isn't a bad compromise.
What happened is tragic but this kid is no hardened criminal. What is the use of paying to jail him?

I must agree with you. He isn't no hardened criminal.
So, he is a hardened criminal?
Whoa, we got a badass grammar Nazi over here! Whoa, you're cool!

ryuclan
  • ryuclan

    Maybe I'll Stay awhile

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2007

#52

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:58 AM Edited by ryuclan, 17 December 2013 - 01:31 AM.

In my opinion...OPINION this sentence is bullsh*t. I know a multitude of young people who have done less and got bitch slapped by the book. If the kid has never seen consequences now's a good time to start. As the judge I would sentence him to 10 years but only have him serve maybe 1. At least that way you can put some fear into his heart so that he understands that there ARE consequences for everything you do. The judge didn't have to lock him up for life, but do SOMETHING.

  • Raavi likes this

CallTheCoroner
  • CallTheCoroner

    Have you ever been dying of thirst, and smelled rain?

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2012
  • United-States

#53

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:58 AM

 

 

 

If you have money you get much lighter sentences. If a 20 year sentence was sought that typically means a plea bargain is available for as little as half the time. With good behavior you can get out in half that. So he could have been out in five years of jail. Ten years probation isn't a bad compromise.
What happened is tragic but this kid is no hardened criminal. What is the use of paying to jail him?

I must agree with you. He isn't no hardened criminal.
So, he is a hardened criminal?
Whoa, we got a badass grammar Nazi over here! Whoa, you're cool!

 

I should of put a friendly "Lol" in there, was only busting your balls!

  • Sting4S likes this

WBaker
  • WBaker

    Acatalepsis

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#54

Posted 17 December 2013 - 04:14 AM

This just occurred to me, the kid was driving illegally even if he had been sober.

Phase Two (of the graduated driver program) restricts the driving privileges of individuals who are under 18 years of age during the 12-month period following the issuance of an original Class A, B, C or M driver license (provisional license).These individuals may not drive a motor vehicle:

1. With more than one passenger in the vehicle under the age of 21 who is not a family member.

2. Between midnight and 5:00 a.m. unless the operation of the vehicle is necessary for the driver to work, to attend or participate in a school-related activity, or due to a medical emergency.

http://www.dps.texas...License/gdl.htm

iiGh0STt
  • iiGh0STt

    Gangsta

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2013
  • Ukraine

#55

Posted 17 December 2013 - 07:16 AM

gotta love our perfect judicial system/

 

where a bank robber with a note and no threats, weapons brandished or mentioned at all, can get 35 years.

and this punk bitch gets off. however, 10 years of probation means 1 speeding ticket and you are f*cked... he is young, and hes OBVIOUSLY plenty of f*cking up to do.

karma is a bitch.


WBaker
  • WBaker

    Acatalepsis

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States

#56

Posted 17 December 2013 - 10:43 AM Edited by WBaker, 17 December 2013 - 10:45 AM.

10 years of probation means 1 speeding ticket and you are f*cked...

Not exactly. There isn't a hard rule on this but with violations of probation in Texas, typically you'll get multiple warnings from your probation officer before it gets bumped back up to the judge who can chose to send you to jail or just give you another warning. There is a lot of personal discretion involved.

That kid won't be able to drive until he's 18, the provisional license is gone, and pays fines and fees that won't be a problem for him (Texas has a buy your way out of a dui system--although he may not even be in this if the prosecutor didn't file a dui charge, heard nothing about it).

And forgive me for taking so long to get to the point, but no normal speeding ticket is grounds for revoking probation. Twice over the posted speed limit or speeding in a school zone or passing a school bus have heightened penalties but it's still a personal discretion thing.

Edit: the tldr version: it's hard to screw up probation in Texas.

iiGh0STt
  • iiGh0STt

    Gangsta

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2013
  • Ukraine

#57

Posted 17 December 2013 - 01:31 PM

 

10 years of probation means 1 speeding ticket and you are f*cked...


Edit: the tldr version: it's hard to screw up probation in Texas.

 

lol thanks. easier to get into death row i take it.


F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#58

Posted 17 December 2013 - 01:56 PM

 

I wonder what record the sentencing judge had on poor minorities.

 

Edit: And I loved the story when they found this kid in the back of a car with a passed out, naked fourteen year old. You think you could get vigilante justice in Texas of all places. 

 

The only known cure for criminals with "poor-itis" is life behind bars. If you have "affluenza" you get to go to a retreat to be rehabilitated (pampered).

 

Rehabilitation works well in Norway, they have much lower rates of re-offending rates. So I'd hardly say life behind bars is the only cure, which it isn't, US Jails are f*cked up, if anything they just make worse reoffenders.

http://www.theguardi...ted-like-people

 


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#59

Posted 17 December 2013 - 09:22 PM Edited by D- Ice, 17 December 2013 - 09:25 PM.

@ Raavi:

 

Your claim that people's brains are far from fully matured (all lobes and neurotransmitters, not just frontal lobes) by the age of 16 are definately all scientifically backed, and I do completely agree with what you say there.

 

 

However, what your conjecture that therefore, in a legal sense, it can be used to excuse a 16 year-old's driving, is frankly illogical IMO. If under Texan/American law, 16 year-olds are allowed to legally drive, it must mean that they believe they own full capacity to understand and bear the responsibilities of driving a car. If their brain development prevents them from taking full responsibility for driving at that age, they shouldn't be allowed to drive. It is really hypocritical to, one one hand, say they have capacity to drive, yet on the other hand, when things go wrong and four other teens are dead, they lack capacity to take responsibility.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

An important thing to point out here is that age was never part of this trial. He was given a relatively very lenient sentence becaise of "Affluenza".

 

I do strongly agree with your logical points that sentencing should be orientated more towards rehabilitation that punishment. I hold the rather controversial opinion that there are no such thing as inherently evil or good people - our behaviours are all decided by incredibly complex neural signalling and pathways whose nature is determined by genetics and life experiences outside an individual's control. Archaic notions of good and evil come from a time prior to understanding neuroscience.

Until quite recently, many people believed tonic-clonic epileptic seizures where the result of possessions by Satan, Djinn, evil spirits etc... Now we understand the science behind that, as well as the fact that most violent criminals suffer psychological or social illnesses.

So, in a way, one can come up with scientific and/or medical explanations/"excuses" for virtually all crime - the rest likely to be explained with future advances in those fields.

 

In my personal opinion, sentencing should be based on forcing criminals to undergo rehabilitation and correction. If that is not possible, then it should be based on isolating them from society (to protect others from them). IMO it is unethical to expect any individual criminal to suffer for the expressed purpose of scaring other potential criminals into line - something used to justify some of the cruelest punishments, from executions to chopping limbs off. Of course that is all idealistic, and sometimes it is easier just to execute a guy than spend hundereds of thousands of pounds trying rehabilitation which won't work, and then deciding to spend hundereds of thousands of pounds isolating him from society for the rest of his life.

 

What I believe is important is that the justice system, especially in the US and many less developed nations, moves away from this whole blame game. Alongside as it's unscientific and unethical nature as described above, it is also open to abuse - as in this case IMO. A rich white teen with a good lawyer can and will be unfairly distanced from his crime so that his sentence is unduly lenient, completely ignoring intinsic factors. While a poor black or latino teen from an impoverished background is given an unduly harsh punishment with no consideration to the far more significant extrinsic social factors encouraging criminal activity.

  • Raavi likes this

Nipperkins
  • Nipperkins

    Grill

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • San-Marino

#60

Posted 18 December 2013 - 01:47 PM

If a 'rich' kid does something there is the possibility of redemption.

If a 'poor' kid does it you have something else, the 'poor' kids would look at any leniency as a weakness in the ruling class. Look at how proud these kids are of their 'jail time'. It's an award, a badge to be worn proudly in the 'hood'. if he was a poor kid he'd most likely tattoo four tear drops on his cheek as a notice to all, "I done in four."

With no real worry of Execution, why should anyone who fears death have a care? And, even if there were to be executions, most (I suspect) wouldn't give it a thought other than, "They aren't gonna catch me."

The fear of punishment for any sort of a crime has long disappeared from the poor classes, nothing to lose has that effect.

Now, with the rich they might have a lot to lose, so they work it out to not do that. When one makes an error of judgment the rest rally round and make it all better.

If you have no idea what it is like to be poor you should have no right to say what goes on in the mind of someone who is. Judging by that post it sounds like you have no idea what it is like to have nothing. Shut the f*ck up. 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users