Reply With Quote
that poor poor suicidal man....he didn't know what he was doing....he didn't mean to kill 10 people....
a in river....cry me one.
It's media justice plain and simple.
The courst system for the most part does take entire situations into consideration in situations such as this. But when there is a case that a garners a large amount of media attention, principles are out the window. We become a knee jerk society who believes they can impliment a zero tolerance judicial system at whim. And that is pretty contradictory.
The man was suicidal. There is no finite line between the frames of mind where you are capable of making rational decisions and those in which you are not.
I just find it amazing that people can sit there and say that he was in a decision making frame of mind becaue he walked away from his suicide and completely ignore that a person in good mental health does not even CONSIDER suicide.
a in river....cry me one.
That response was both brilliant and relevant.
I'm pretty sure no one involved in this discussion has any pity for this guy.
spurm, your thought process in this thread is whacked.
let me ask. what do you suggest for this guy?
How so?spurm, your thought process in this thread is whacked.
Whatever jail time you'd typically give to someone for leaving their automobile on train tracks. And counceling.let me ask. what do you suggest for this guy?
Spurm, I can try and understand your logic, but I think the punishment needs to be much harsher than this. What if a 1,000 people were killed? Just because you say you didn't think a particular outcome was going to come of your actions, you still need to be held responsible for that outcome.
so you think the penalties should be stiffer, kind of assume the severity that is the unintended death of innocent people...for things such as drunk driving and car on tracks.....
i'm more of the no harm, no foul mentality. the more severe the RESULTS of negligent or illegal actions, the more severe the punishment. i hope he's charged with 10 counts of negligent homicide or whatever the term for it is.....
What do you hope to accomplish by this? I can see no reason for punishing someone based on the effects of their actions beyond simply satisfying our craving for revenge. It's emotional, nothing more.Just because you say you didn't think a particular outcome was going to come of your actions, you still need to be held responsible for that outcome.
I'm sure he will be hit with civil suits as well. That's where the consequences are punished. Emotions should not come into play during a Criminal hearing.
As long as it's not murder, that seems fine to me.i hope he's charged with 10 counts of negligent homicide or whatever the term for it is.....
semantics.
Sounds to me like the difference between something like Murder and Attempted Murder.. the intentions were the same, but the results differ.
Murder and Manslaughter differ in more ways than semantics.semantics.
I'm sorry Spurm, but emotions are very deeply involved with a criminal case. That's why people can be declared temporarily insane for finding their spouse in bad with another person and then killing them. If a drunk driver kills a family of people, that driver is responsible for every death in that family. The driver should be punished for knowingly taking that risk. Maybe not the death penalty, but certainly life in prison. The man who wanted to kill himself knew the train would hit his truck, it's not like accidently being hit by a train and causing the outcome.
"I can see no reason for punishing someone based on the effects of their actions beyond simply satisfying our craving for revenge."
i hope he's charged with 10 counts of negligent homicide or whatever the term for it is.....
"that seems fine to me."
which is it?
You're right, I was inconsistent. I would not charge him with any kind of homicide.
That's not the kind of emotion I'm talking about. I'm talking about taking out our anger in the Criminal Court, beyond punishing the crime. Not the emotions that caused the crime itself.
You just said it yourself... "The driver should be punished for knowingly taking that risk." That's exactly what he should be punished for. Why should the penalty differ if he happened to hit one person, a family of five, or a bus full of children? The crime was the same.If a drunk driver kills a family of people, that driver is responsible for every death in that family. The driver should be punished for knowingly taking that risk. Maybe not the death penalty, but certainly life in prison.
And that's why it's a crime. If his car stalled on the tracks and he could not move it, we probably wouldn't be talking about handing down any punishment at all, beyond Civil Court.The man who wanted to kill himself knew the train would hit his truck, it's not like accidently being hit by a train and causing the outcome.
What if the train derailed, slammed into a government disease research facility and set off a chain reaction where millions of people died of the Ebola virus? Should we hang him on national television?
So you're saying it doesn't matter how many people he killed, because he didn't think it would kill anyone when he parked the truck there?
There should be greater penalties if more harm was to have come from his actions. That's like saying, I went up the front door of a building that was dark and threw a grenade in. I didn't think anyone was home, but 5 people inside were killed who were asleep. Is that manslaughter? What should be the punishment?
Last edited by Useruser666; 01-28-2005 at 03:10 PM.
or michael jackson saying he was thrusting upward in bed and little mccauly just jumped up there unexpectantly.....
Why? What purpose does that serve for the Greater Good? Is he a more dangerous person because of the people who died or because he left his SUV on train tracks?So you're saying it doesn't matter how many people he killed, because he didn't think it would kill anyone when he parked the truck there?
There should be greater penalties if more harm was to have come from his actions.
I'm not trying to present a Utopian/Naive philospohy where this applies to every conceiveable example. If so, any criminal could bring forth the excuse that it was an accident. I think the hypothetical situations you are suggesting would be laughed out of any court room. A more realistic comparison might include someone leaving their car parked in fire lane, preventing access to a hydrant... resulting in the deaths of several families in an apartment complex.There should be greater penalties if more harm was to have come from his actions. That's like saying, went up the front door of a building that was dark and threw a grenade in. I didn't think anyone was home, but 5 people inside were killed who were asleep. Is that manslaughter? What should be the punishment?
I think in this particular case, assuming it was accidental, a charge of Murder is too harsh. I don't think it accomplishes anything except revenge. And that's what Civil Court is for, to some degree.
what it hopefully accomplishes is keeping other loonies off the tracks and keeping like this from happening again...
in your firehydrant example, i would hope they would throw the book at the guy or girl to keep other inconsiderate and unthinking aholes from parking there to raise the awareness of such negligence......and in this case, they usually break the windows of the car don't they? that's how it's done in the movies....
Do you mean the specific person in this case? Or are you thinking that a harsher penalty would deter future wackos from leaving their cars on the tracks?what it hopefully accomplishes is keeping other loonies off the tracks and keeping like this from happening again...
Because no matter what punishment is handed down, I doubt it's going to make much difference in preventing future copycats.
Spurm, are you going to sue for your loved one's life back? Civil court is not punishment.
It absolutely is punishment. If I have to pay you out of my ass for harming you in any way, I am being punished.Civil court is not punishment.
It's not res ution, but then again, neither is Criminal Court. You won't get your loved ones back after a certain amount of time served either.
Yes, I'm sure the next suicidal person who thinks about killing themselves on train tracks is going to stop and question the reprocussions of their actions based on any outcome of this case.
Because you know, as I pointed out before, suicidal people are the best at excercising sound judgement because of their excellent and very stable mental condition.
Then explain wrongful death suits.
Unless you have nothing to lose...
Sounds like that guy wasn't exactly rolling in the dough. Those families won't see a red cent from him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
