• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Blackjack200 said:
Why should we punish consequences that may have been realized by chance rather than the heinousness of the intended or committed crime itself?
Click to expand...
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).
 
PokerGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. 🙂
 
DrPizza said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blackjack200 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
smackababy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Blackjack200 said:
Of course it's socially unacceptable. Show me an AT thread where people brag or joke about drunk driving. It's taboo.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
 
Last edited:
smackababy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
DCal430 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Subyman said:
They deserve the charge. No murder if they hadn't tried to rob the place.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DCal430 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So very much this, imho.
 
DCal430 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
DrPizza said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blackjack200 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
DrPizza said:
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).
Click to expand...

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?
 
Darwin333 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
WelshBloke said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top