ELKHART 4 - Life sentences for a murder they didn't commit

[DrPizza]

Why should we punish consequences that may have been realized by chance rather than the heinousness of the intended or committed crime itself?

How about the consequences of drunk driving then, if someone gets into an accident. I suppose it could be argued that it's only chance that the accident occurred - increased chance over someone who is sober, but chance nonetheless. Many people have driven drunk incident free (and they shouldn't, and I have no problem with them receiving harsh punishment).

 

[dainthomas]

Sounds like one of those oft-repeated stories that is based on a very particular scenario grain of truth. If you think about it, if that's how it worked, then *everyone* who maintained their innocence and was found guilty in court would automatically be guilty of perjury. That's not how it works.

His only issue was he didn't plead the fifth. According to her there was nothing extraordinary about the case other than this. And apparently the prosecutors in this particular county are notorious for stunts like this.

Since it's public record I can have her look up the case number and I can post it here if that would help.

 

[WelshBloke]

BZZT! Wrong answer. In the example in the OP they would have been better off not committing the crime in the first place.

Yeah, like that's going to happen.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Yeah, like that's going to happen.

Well it's not going to happen again for those four.

 

[Blackjack200]

How about the consequences of drunk driving then, if someone gets into an accident. I suppose it could be argued that it's only chance that the accident occurred - increased chance over someone who is sober, but chance nonetheless. Many people have driven drunk incident free (and they shouldn't, and I have no problem with them receiving harsh punishment).

I agree, but drunk driving should not be treated any differently than other behavior that increases the likelihood of an accident, including texting and speeding. I also don't think we should punish someone with a BAC of 0.05 the same way we punish someone who is at .2 or .3

I know some will angrily disagree with me, but I think we should roll back a lot of the drunk driving penalties. They were more appropriate when drunk driving was socially accepted, but it's not now. Ticket it, give points for it, and if someone is driving recklessly and putting others in danger, arrest them on that charge and punish them.

 

[smackababy]

I agree, but drunk driving should not be treated any differently than other behavior that increases the likelihood of an accident, including texting and speeding. I also don't think we should punish someone with a BAC of 0.05 the same way we punish someone who is at .2 or .3

I know some will angrily disagree with me, but I think we should roll back a lot of the drunk driving penalties. They were more appropriate when drunk driving was socially accepted, but it's not now. Ticket it, give points for it, and if someone is driving recklessly and putting others in danger, arrest them on that charge and punish them.

I completely disagree. Relegating drunk driving to that of speeding in terms of actual consequences and it will only become the norm far more than it already is. If you actually think it is socially unacceptable, you must live in some Utopian society.

As far as the severity being based on BAC, that is ridiculous. IF someone is impaired enough to be identified as possibly drunk, they are impaired enough to be treated like a drunk driver, regardless of their BAC.

 

[Blackjack200]

I completely disagree. Relegating drunk driving to that of speeding in terms of actual consequences and it will only become the norm far more than it already is. If you actually think it is socially unacceptable, you must live in some Utopian society.

Of course it's socially unacceptable. Show me an AT thread where people brag or joke about drunk driving. It's taboo.

As far as the severity being based on BAC, that is ridiculous. IF someone is impaired enough to be identified as possibly drunk, they are impaired enough to be treated like a drunk driver, regardless of their BAC.

Why do you feel that way? Do you feel that a person with a .2 or .3 is not more of a hazard than someone with a .05?

 

[smackababy]

Of course it's socially unacceptable. Show me an AT thread where people brag or joke about drunk driving. It's taboo.

Because, ATOT is the gold standard of what is socially acceptable... Where a bunch of creatons rate how good a television program or movie is based on how many "tatas" are shown and how hot the "babe" in it is. Go to a bar. How many people turn a blind eye to people drinking and leaving, keys in hand? Most even do it with their friends.

Why do you feel that way? Do you feel that a person with a .2 or .3 is not more of a hazard than someone with a .05?

I feel that knowingly impairing yourself and then choosing to operate something as dangerous as a car should be a crime, regardless of your BAC. If someone with .05 BAC is impaired enough by that to drive erratically enough a police officer feels the need to stop them, they should be arrested and punished accordingly.

 

[touchstone]

Drinking and driving is retarded but I don't see what it has to do with these kids being charged with murder.


The penalties are steep but frankly you are totally going to kill somebody or yourself if you keep drinking and driving. So either we put penalties there that are harsh enough to scare the majority of idiots off, with a few going to prison for it... or we just let people die, and then charge them and make them go to prison anyway because they killed somebody. Seems like it saves us the time to charge them with a serious crime to begin with. I support harsh DUI laws.


EDIT: What I do not support is the blacklisting of said people for jobs/etc after one DUI. If you drink and drive repeatedly you should go to prison but I don't agree with the way this country punishes felons (revolving door).

 

[Blackjack200]

Because, ATOT is the gold standard of what is socially acceptable... Where a bunch of creatons rate how good a television program or movie is based on how many "tatas" are shown and how hot the "babe" in it is. Go to a bar. How many people turn a blind eye to people drinking and leaving, keys in hand? Most even do it with their friends.

If we're a bunch of creatons then the ATOT bar should be lower than society in general, not higher.

Bars turn a blind eye to it because the reality is that it happens, but no-one is joking about it.

I feel that knowingly impairing yourself and then choosing to operate something as dangerous as a car should be a crime, regardless of your BAC. If someone with .05 BAC is impaired enough by that to drive erratically enough a police officer feels the need to stop them, they should be arrested and punished accordingly.

Okay, what about someone that has a .05 BAC, is not driving erratically enough to get pulled over, but does get caught at a checkpoint?

What about someone that is sober, but is driving erratically enough to get pulled over, they should be punished less for some reason?

 

[DCal430]

IMHO Felony murder needs to be limited to cases when an INNOCENT is killed, not one of the criminals involved. That makes no sense at all. I am positive most law makers intended it to be applied when an innocent is killed.

 

[Jhhnn]

IMHO Felony murder needs to be limited to cases when an INNOCENT is killed, not one of the criminals involved. That makes no sense at all. I am positive most law makers intended it to be applied when an innocent is killed.

That's too logical, obviously, not to mention that the prison industrial complex is greedy for all the warm bodies that authoritarian fools will provide. Just think of really looong sentences as the RWA version of job security for their loyal minions.

 

[Darwin333]

They deserve the charge. No murder if they hadn't tried to rob the place.

I don't know.... There wasn't really a murder, there was a justifiable homicide. The intruder that got killed is the one getting the "justice" in this case and that just seems..... odd.

But we really like locking people up in this country so it's not surprising in the least. Take a couple of common thieves and put them in jail for life while actual murders end up back on the streets.

 

[Darwin333]

IMHO Felony murder needs to be limited to cases when an INNOCENT is killed, not one of the criminals involved. That makes no sense at all. I am positive most law makers intended it to be applied when an innocent is killed.

So very much this, imho.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

IMHO Felony murder needs to be limited to cases when an INNOCENT is killed, not one of the criminals involved. That makes no sense at all. I am positive most law makers intended it to be applied when an innocent is killed.

1) Utter nonsense. Most lawmakers did intend for it to be used like this, that's how it's used like this. You think prosecutors just make up their own statutes? The lawmakers most definitely wrote the law for the specific purpose of it being applied exactly this way. Do you understand nothing of our legal system? Wait, nevermind, you clearly do not. Silly question.

2) You, like the rest of the bewildered folks desperate to make a point you don't even understand, are getting your panties in a bunch about the semantics of "felony murder". Why does that phrasing matter to you and why are you clinging to it so desperately like its the last lifeboat on the Titanic? The terminology is meaningless. WTF cares if it's called "felony murder", "contributory homicide", "ancillary manslaughter" or even freaking "aggravated jaywalking with extreme malice"? No matter what it's called the idea is that every person is responsible for ALL negative consequences of their crime and if a person dies the entire onus is on them as if they caused the death by their own two hands.

So try not clinging to that nasty old word of murder and try to argue the actual point of the law. What objection do you have about perps being held accountable for all deaths that stem from their illegal acts no matter what those acts are called in the indictment?

 

[Darwin333]

Step 3. If you rob a house, one of the consequences of your actions is the death of one of your accomplices. That's on you.

Why isn't it an assumed risk on the accomplice, as it is on everyone else involved?

Also there is the precedent, if I was a thief I would be much quicker to commit murder, that I wouldn't otherwise have any desire to do, if I knew I could still get charged with it if the homeowner shoots one of my buddies. I'm not a big fan of upping criminal punishment to a point that it gives criminal perfectly logical reasons to up their levels of violence.

Not to mention is it really the fault of other criminals that a criminal was lawfully shot and killed if there was zero coercion involved? I'm all about people being responsible for their own actions but this just doesn't seem like doing that.

 

[Darwin333]

Okay, what about someone that has a .05 BAC, is not driving erratically enough to get pulled over, but does get caught at a checkpoint?

What about someone that is sober, but is driving erratically enough to get pulled over, they should be punished less for some reason?

People whose reaction time is impaired (that is what we are really talking about), regardless of reason, should receive the exact same punishment because they are exactly the same risk to others. We could, with great ease, develop a very cheap device that would do exactly that but we don't really care about actual safety that much. Revenue is so much more important.

 

[Jhhnn]

No matter what it's called the idea is that every person is responsible for ALL negative consequences of their crime and if a person dies the entire onus is on them as if they caused the death by their own two hands.

Which attempts to magically transform legal homicide into a criminal act merely through guilt by association with the decedent. It serves Justice in no way. It's just stupid & expensive tough on crime posturing.

 

[Darwin333]

How about the consequences of drunk driving then, if someone gets into an accident. I suppose it could be argued that it's only chance that the accident occurred - increased chance over someone who is sober, but chance nonetheless. Many people have driven drunk incident free (and they shouldn't, and I have no problem with them receiving harsh punishment).

Did you know that being sleepy can have the exact same effects on driving, much slower reaction time, as driving drunk can? Where is the campaign to stomp out sleepy driving? Why no absurdly harsh penalties for those that do get into accidents caused by driving under the influence of sleep deprivation?

 

[Blackjack200]

People whose reaction time is impaired (that is what we are really talking about), regardless of reason, should receive the exact same punishment because they are exactly the same risk to others. We could, with great ease, develop a very cheap device that would do exactly that but we don't really care about actual safety that much. Revenue is so much more important.

Actually the person I was responding to said 'driving erratically'. That's very different from impaired reaction time. LOTS of people drive with impaired reaction time. Have you ever driven drowsy? Texted, made a phone call, or done anything with your phone? Looked for something in the back seat? Eaten? Drank? No, I'm sure your hands at 10 and 2 with your mirrors adjusted and gaze fixed on the horizon.

To reiterate, I'm not saying we should tolerate drunk driving. It's well established that drunk drivers pose a risk to others, and it should not be tolerated. I'm just saying that at this point the penalties are absolutely fucking Looney Tunes.

You know what is tolerated? Older drivers, even though they also pose a greater risk to others.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/Older_Adult_Drivers/adult-drivers_factsheet.html

Should we start taking people drivers licenses away when they turn 75? Of course not. What we need to do is stop pretending that everyone that poses a slightly greater risk to us needs to lose their license for a year or go to prison.

The dude driving 120 MPH, weaving through traffic, severely inebriated? Yeah, put him in jail. But that's not just drunk driving.

 

[Matt1970]

Don't complain when you get a bunch of other ill conceived, badly written laws that impact you then.

Laws aren't made in a vacuum, start letting legislators get away with crap like this and it will come back to bite you in the arse.

These laws won't bite me in the ass because I don't break into people's houses and then bitch about what I get charged with after the fact.

 

[Rakehellion]

The law and most people disagree with you. Their robbery was the cause of their fellow robber getting killed. Can't do the time don't do the crime. They came out light, they weren't killed by the home owner.

Who are "most people?" Speak for yourself.

 

[cabri]

Who are "most people?" Speak for yourself.

Count up those in this thread that support the charges vs those that feel the they two should be cleared

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Considering that 46 states have felony murder rules on the books it must be supported by the majority of the legislators (both sides of the aisle) in those states. I've never heard of any major or minor movements to have the felony murder rules struck down so it appears most Americans must support this law as well.

 

[Rakehellion]

These laws won't bite me in the ass because I don't break into people's houses and then bitch about what I get charged with after the fact.

If the penalty for every crime is the same as for murder, what's the stop every criminal from becoming a murderer?