Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7459
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Zamfir » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:39 am UTC

Off-topic people, off-topic

User avatar
Ormurinn
Posts: 1033
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:42 pm UTC
Location: Suth Eoferwicscire

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Ormurinn » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:44 am UTC

Spoiler:
Princess Marzipan wrote:
I'm always a bit put out when people start "joking" about wanting the south to secede, considering what thenorth put them through when they wanted to last.


Nobody who fought to prevent the South from seceding is even alive today, so ... shut up?


So Jews who weren't there aren't allowed to get offended if I make a joke about the holocaust around them?

As I said, this is going far off-topic -- Zamfir
"Progress" - Technological advances masking societal decay.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:33 pm UTC

Sorry to cause such a ruckus, I just intended that to be a demonstration of why the depraved heart murder clause is a joke right now. There are plenty of examples from the supposedly "civilized" states btw, if anyone is interested.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:06 pm UTC

To much speculation and too little data. The only data to this point is that he killed a young girl, he was prosecuted for second degree murder, he was convicted and sentenced. Implicitly he had an Attorney, received a trail by jury, presented a rebuttal to the prosecution. Here is some additional data including the fact that this was the second trial. Follow the links and you might see why he was charged with murder rather than manslaughter. I'm not sure what to think, assuming the witnesses didn't lie.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:20 pm UTC

Miller told the jurors Khankhanian is guilty of murder whether he intended to kill the girl or not.

...................what?
Miller showed a powerpoint slide with the word "manipulation" in all caps while she played the recording.

what the fuck...what the actual fuck......
"The defendant is manipulative," Miller said, adding that the jurors should hold him accountable for taking the life of such a young girl.

OK fuck this I am out of here.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Diadem » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:09 pm UTC

I'm happy to see that justice was served. Finely chopped, on a platter.

My impression from the other side of the pond is that this is pretty much par on course for the US.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Chen
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Chen » Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:15 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:
Miller told the jurors Khankhanian is guilty of murder whether he intended to kill the girl or not.

...................what?


Depraved indifference is generally enough for a second degree murder charge. Trying to crash your car to kill yourself seems to fall under that category to me considering how dangerous car crashes can be to others.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby curtis95112 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

When cars crash with other cars or people, yes.

I don't have any data but I'd expect cars intended to crash into walls and the like to be mostly harmless to other people. Do people often hit other people when trying to crash into walls?
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1212
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Sizik » Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:04 pm UTC

People sometimes walk next to walls.
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Роберт » Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:42 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:If he'd walked down the High Street throwing pebbles at random, and one caught a girl and killed her, it'd be a legitimate sentence.

Absolutely ridiculous. The actual outcome of a specific act shouldn't matter nearly as much as you're acting like it should. Throwing pebbles without malicious intent should not give anyone a life sentence. If you're doing something dangerous, like shooting a gun into the air in a populated area, you should get a pretty serious punishment, regardless of whether or not someone happened to get killed because of it. If you're doing something less dangerous, like singing, you should not be severely punished, regardless of whether or not your singing distracted a cyclist and caused him to run into a train and die. (Unless of course there was malicious intent - you intended to distract the cyclist to cause injury.)
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Diadem » Mon Jun 18, 2012 6:11 pm UTC

Ideally, only intent should matter, and outcome should not be relevant at all. Though of course in practice, since you can't read thoughts, you have to often infer the former from the latter.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3685
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Dark567 » Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:44 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Ideally, only intent should matter, and outcome should not be relevant at all. Though of course in practice, since you can't read thoughts, you have to often infer the former from the latter.
The thing is in situations(like this one), we can pretty clearly see the intent but most people still want the punishment to be based on the consequences. The intent of two dangerous speeders is probably pretty much identical, and I think most people agree. Yet if one kills someone, they will be punished more harshly. Should they really be though? Are we going to attribute huge parts of our justice system to consequential moral luck? I think the answer we generally see is, yes.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Роберт » Mon Jun 18, 2012 10:22 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Diadem wrote:Ideally, only intent should matter, and outcome should not be relevant at all. Though of course in practice, since you can't read thoughts, you have to often infer the former from the latter.
The thing is in situations(like this one), we can pretty clearly see the intent but most people still want the punishment to be based on the consequences. The intent of two dangerous speeders is probably pretty much identical, and I think most people agree. Yet if one kills someone, they will be punished more harshly. Should they really be though? Are we going to attribute huge parts of our justice system to consequential moral luck? I think the answer we generally see is, yes.

But what initially brought this up was What's-his-name saying, essentially, that a life sentence is a fair consequence for any action that leads to the death of an innocent person. (His specific scenario was "random pebble throwing".) I'm okay with the sentence being harsher for actions that actually resulted in harm verses actions that created an unacceptable risk of harm, but didn't actually, but it shouldn't be THAT different.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Tirian » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:10 pm UTC

It depends on your motivation for justice. If you want to have a society that discourages reckless driving, then you'll give a year for reckless endangerment to anyone whose actions could have resulted in the death of a cute girl whether the girl dies or not. That'd work well for making people think twice before making the decision that you don't want them to make. Trouble is, when the snake eyes comes up and a cute girl does die, her family is probably going to demand "closure" from the District Attorney and some guy is going to get an additional 14 years for bad luck.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:24 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:But what initially brought this up was What's-his-name saying, essentially, that a life sentence is a fair consequence for any action that leads to the death of an innocent person.

He didn't say that. There is a difference between an action that leads to a death and an action with reckless disregard for life.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Thesh » Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:48 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Роберт wrote:But what initially brought this up was What's-his-name saying, essentially, that a life sentence is a fair consequence for any action that leads to the death of an innocent person.

He didn't say that. There is a difference between an action that leads to a death and an action with reckless disregard for life.


Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and murder, intent. That's the whole idea behind manslaughter, it's not murder but it should still be punished. If someone gets killed when you don't have intent and are not acting recklessly, then it's just an accident and not punishable by law.

I think the single largest factor that should be considered in sentencing is danger to society. Is this person likely to harm anyone again? Not really. So why does he deserve the same sentence as someone who killed with intent?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:43 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and murder, intent. That's the whole idea behind manslaughter, it's not murder but it should still be punished. If someone gets killed when you don't have intent and are not acting recklessly, then it's just an accident and not punishable by law.

Further analysis of Ormurinn's post reveals that he did not say anything about the murder verdict.

Edit: Though, really, I'm not sure what basis you have for arguing that murder is something other than what it's defined to be in the penal code of the state in question (as well as the Model Penal Code).
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Chen
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Chen » Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:52 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and murder, intent. That's the whole idea behind manslaughter, it's not murder but it should still be punished. If someone gets killed when you don't have intent and are not acting recklessly, then it's just an accident and not punishable by law.


Are you talking about what things should be? Because a homicide where the death results from a reckless disregard for human life, even if there is no intent to kill, is generally considered second degree murder.

I think the single largest factor that should be considered in sentencing is danger to society. Is this person likely to harm anyone again? Not really. So why does he deserve the same sentence as someone who killed with intent?


I'm not sure why you say this person isn't likely to harm anyone again. If the person decides to once again kill themselves by driving around recklessly there's a good chance someone else will be hurt again.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Роберт » Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:29 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Роберт wrote:But what initially brought this up was What's-his-name saying, essentially, that a life sentence is a fair consequence for any action that leads to the death of an innocent person. (His specific scenario was "random pebble throwing".)

He didn't say that. There is a difference between an action that leads to a death and an action with reckless disregard for life.

Because "throwing pebbles" clearly demonstrates a reckless disregard for life.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby lutzj » Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:11 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Роберт wrote:But what initially brought this up was What's-his-name saying, essentially, that a life sentence is a fair consequence for any action that leads to the death of an innocent person. (His specific scenario was "random pebble throwing".)

He didn't say that. There is a difference between an action that leads to a death and an action with reckless disregard for life.

Because "throwing pebbles" clearly demonstrates a reckless disregard for life.


I interpreted his pebble-throwing scenario as throwing pebbles from a skyscraper or bridge or something into an area full of people.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:15 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Роберт wrote:But what initially brought this up was What's-his-name saying, essentially, that a life sentence is a fair consequence for any action that leads to the death of an innocent person. (His specific scenario was "random pebble throwing".)

He didn't say that. There is a difference between an action that leads to a death and an action with reckless disregard for life.

Because "throwing pebbles" clearly demonstrates a reckless disregard for life.

It's more that than it is an example of any random thing that leads to someone's death.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:02 am UTC

There was a case not too long ago where we actually got it right. Someone was driving dangerously. They were speeding and ran a stop sign, if memory serves me correctly. They hit and killed a little girl, and they got a speeding ticket and running a stop ticket. It wasn't brought be fore the courts or anything.

If you hit someone, they might not be dead instantly. Arresting them incentivizes hit-and-runs. You incentivize leaving people to die in the street.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Thesh » Wed Jun 20, 2012 6:33 am UTC

Chen wrote:
Thesh wrote:Again, that's the difference between manslaughter and murder, intent. That's the whole idea behind manslaughter, it's not murder but it should still be punished. If someone gets killed when you don't have intent and are not acting recklessly, then it's just an accident and not punishable by law.


Are you talking about what things should be? Because a homicide where the death results from a reckless disregard for human life, even if there is no intent to kill, is generally considered second degree murder.


There are two ways to interpret the term "reckless disregard for human life"

1) You are doing something and not thinking about the fact that someone may get killed because of your actions
2) You are doing something, knowing someone may get killed because of your actions, but don't care

California law requires "malice aforethought" for a homicide to be considered murder. The second definition is murder under California law, the first is not (keyword "aforethought" also, keyword "malice"). I was assuming the first definition, because it's the only one that applies within the context of the case.

For reference, California law:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... le=187-199
Spoiler:
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.


188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:41 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:There was a case not too long ago where we actually got it right. Someone was driving dangerously. They were speeding and ran a stop sign, if memory serves me correctly. They hit and killed a little girl, and they got a speeding ticket and running a stop ticket. It wasn't brought be fore the courts or anything.

If you hit someone, they might not be dead instantly. Arresting them incentivizes hit-and-runs. You incentivize leaving people to die in the street.

I'm unconvinced that murder charges were the way to go per the OP story, but I find this statement more the a little grotesque. Don't charge them because they might run away if they know you will?

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby jules.LT » Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:10 pm UTC

I think the argument was to not excessively charge them so they'll call 911 and the victim has a better chance to live.

Anyhow, punishing risky behaviours regardless of whether bad things happened or not doesn't sound that bad.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby bentheimmigrant » Wed Jun 20, 2012 12:52 pm UTC

jules.LT wrote:I think the argument was to not excessively charge them so they'll call 911 and the victim has a better chance to live.

Anyhow, punishing risky behaviours regardless of whether bad things happened or not doesn't sound that bad.

Except no one will think a hefty punishment for speeding is ok. The problem is it's difficult to remove the emotions from it - if someone dies, then we want a bigger punishment, even if it is because someone is breaking the rules in a way that 80% of people do, but they were just unlucky enough to be the one who caused a death by it...

I think that the guilt of killing someone is often adequate "punishment".
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby jules.LT » Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:01 pm UTC

Agreed.
Another risk I see is overpunishing behaviour that isn't that dangerous. I mean, sometimes a red light in the middle of nowhere is useless.
I'm just saying that it's a nice principle to try for, among others.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:24 pm UTC

The narrative from nitePhyyre's story to me implies that the person died because the driver was speeding and ran a red light. If that is the case than effectively what is being said is that what the driver did was no worse than running a light and speeding, the things for which he was fined. Is that correct?

bentheimmigrant wrote:Except no one will think a hefty punishment for speeding is ok. The problem is it's difficult to remove the emotions from it - if someone dies, then we want a bigger punishment, even if it is because someone is breaking the rules in a way that 80% of people do, but they were just unlucky enough to be the one who caused a death by it...

I think that the guilt of killing someone is often adequate "punishment".


I'm not sure what you are saying. Is it that if 80 percent of the people do a behavior, that we should not punish someone who kills another person while doing so because obviously there is nothing wrong with the behavior because 80 percent do it? If nitePhyyre's assertion is that the punishment provides a disincentive to stop and render aid, then what kind of incentive does not punishing the behavior provide?

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby bentheimmigrant » Wed Jun 20, 2012 3:44 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:I'm not sure what you are saying. Is it that if 80 percent of the people do a behavior, that we should not punish someone who kills another person while doing so because obviously there is nothing wrong with the behavior because 80 percent do it? If nitePhyyre's assertion is that the punishment provides a disincentive to stop and render aid, then what kind of incentive does not punishing the behavior provide?

...
bentheimmigrant wrote:if someone dies, then we want a bigger punishment

"Bigger punishment" implies that there is a smaller punishment for the same crime minus the misfortune that it happened to hurt someone else. My assertion is that it lacks reason to demand extra punishment for a crime that was more a matter of (bad) luck than intent, when the other people who are committing the same crime are not punished in the same way. As I said, it's simply an emotional matter.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

User avatar
JBJ
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:20 pm UTC
Location: a point or extent in space

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby JBJ » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:03 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:There was a case not too long ago where we actually got it right. Someone was driving dangerously. They were speeding and ran a stop sign, if memory serves me correctly. They hit and killed a little girl, and they got a speeding ticket and running a stop ticket. It wasn't brought be fore the courts or anything.

If you hit someone, they might not be dead instantly. Arresting them incentivizes hit-and-runs. You incentivize leaving people to die in the street.

They actually do get that right most of the time. If police suspect involuntary manslaughter they usually don't arrest the driver on the spot. They write their tickets then hand the accident report with their recommendations over to the district or state attorney's office to decide whether manslaughter charges are warranted. However, if they conclude that the driver was acting in an excessively irresponsible and reckless manner (i.e., DUI, excessive speed, racing, road rage, etc...) then they will arrest the driver then and there. As well they should, because they would have cause to arrest the driver even if they hadn't killed anyone.

The way you phrased your statement made it sound like no manslaughter charges were even considered. If that's what you're saying happened, I'm going to slap a big 'ol [citation needed] on that story. If the charges were investigated but not followed through on, I'd find it very unlikely but not implausible (depending on the actual circumstances of the case). But if all you're saying is that they didn't arrest the driver at the scene, well then, yeah... unless the driver's actions were reckless and irresponsible, that's kind of standard operating procedure.
So, you sacked the cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker?
The second cocky khaki Kicky Sack sock plucker I've sacked since the sixth sitting sheet slitter got sick.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:37 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
Роберт wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Роберт wrote:But what initially brought this up was What's-his-name saying, essentially, that a life sentence is a fair consequence for any action that leads to the death of an innocent person. (His specific scenario was "random pebble throwing".)

He didn't say that. There is a difference between an action that leads to a death and an action with reckless disregard for life.

Because "throwing pebbles" clearly demonstrates a reckless disregard for life.


I interpreted his pebble-throwing scenario as throwing pebbles from a skyscraper or bridge or something into an area full of people.

Interesting, considering what he actually said.
If he'd walked down the High Street throwing pebbles at random, and one caught a girl and killed her, it'd be a legitimate sentence.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:45 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:if someone dies, then we want a bigger punishment

bentheimmigrant wrote:"Bigger punishment" implies that there is a smaller punishment for the same crime minus the misfortune that it happened to hurt someone else. My assertion is that it lacks reason to demand extra punishment for a crime that was more a matter of (bad) luck than intent, when the other people who are committing the same crime are not punished in the same way. As I said, it's simply an emotional matter.


Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding. I could understand your position if a driver were operating within the law and killed a person. It's tragic, but it happens. But by definition, if he is speeding, then he is operating his vehicle in a way that society has defined as dangerous, and in that has shown a disregard for the safety of others with which he shares the road. That would seem to indicate intent. And other speeders didn't commit the same crime. His crime would have been vehicular homicide or vehicular manslaughter.

And back on topic I ran across this on the Wikipedia.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby bentheimmigrant » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:53 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:if someone dies, then we want a bigger punishment

bentheimmigrant wrote:"Bigger punishment" implies that there is a smaller punishment for the same crime minus the misfortune that it happened to hurt someone else. My assertion is that it lacks reason to demand extra punishment for a crime that was more a matter of (bad) luck than intent, when the other people who are committing the same crime are not punished in the same way. As I said, it's simply an emotional matter.


Again, perhaps I am misunderstanding. I could understand your position if a driver were operating within the law and killed a person. It's tragic, but it happens. But by definition, if he is speeding, then he is operating his vehicle in a way that society has defined as dangerous, and in that has shown a disregard for the safety of others with which he shares the road. That would seem to indicate intent. And other speeders didn't commit the same crime. His crime would have been vehicular homicide or vehicular manslaughter.

And back on topic I ran across this on the Wikipedia.

But again, this is only because we feel like the person driving the car which hits another person should be punished. Look at it this way: 100 people are driving on the same road, all going over the speed limit. They are all committing the same crime. One of those people hits someone. What action have they taken that was any different from the other 99?
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby PeterCai » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:But again, this is only because we feel like the person driving the car which hits another person should be punished. Look at it this way: 100 people are driving on the same road, all going over the speed limit. They are all committing the same crime. One of those people hits someone. What action have they taken that was any different from the other 99?

the hitting a person part, aka actus reus, aka the crime.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:100 people are driving on the same road, all going over the speed limit. They are all committing the same crime. One of those people hits someone. What action have they taken that was any different from the other 99?

They hit someone.

Spoiler:
Going over some arbitrary limit doesn't mean you were driving dangerously, necessarily. Your reaction time, feild of vision, car handling and ability, and current driving conditions all come into play. A skilled driver doing 75 on a 60 when the visibility is great, and no on is around? Not that bad. A poor driver doing 55 on that same road during such a huge downpoor that visibility is about 3 yards, hitting someone and killing them? Bad.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
bentheimmigrant
Dotcor Good Poster
Posts: 1363
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:01 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby bentheimmigrant » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:05 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:But again, this is only because we feel like the person driving the car which hits another person should be punished. Look at it this way: 100 people are driving on the same road, all going over the speed limit. They are all committing the same crime. One of those people hits someone. What action have they taken that was any different from the other 99?

the hitting a person part, aka actus reus, aka the crime.

But is that an action? An actual decision? If the rationale for punishing them comes back to "well, they were speeding", then why isn't the same punishment doled out to all the other people speeding, who were making the same decision to endanger lives as much as the person in the accident?

You can go ahead and define "hitting someone with a car" as a crime, and then say "yeah, they committed that crime", but again, what action did that person take that is any different than all the others?

Роберт wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:100 people are driving on the same road, all going over the speed limit. They are all committing the same crime. One of those people hits someone. What action have they taken that was any different from the other 99?

They hit someone.

Spoiler:
Going over some arbitrary limit doesn't mean you were driving dangerously, necessarily. Your reaction time, feild of vision, car handling and ability, and current driving conditions all come into play. A skilled driver doing 75 on a 60 when the visibility is great, and no on is around? Not that bad. A poor driver doing 55 on that same road during such a huge downpoor that visibility is about 3 yards, hitting someone and killing them? Bad.

Which is precisely why I defined a situation where everyone is doing the same thing on the same road.
"Comment is free, but facts are sacred" - C.P. Scott

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Роберт » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:10 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:
Роберт wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:100 people are driving on the same road, all going over the speed limit. They are all committing the same crime. One of those people hits someone. What action have they taken that was any different from the other 99?

They hit someone.

Spoiler:
Going over some arbitrary limit doesn't mean you were driving dangerously, necessarily. Your reaction time, feild of vision, car handling and ability, and current driving conditions all come into play. A skilled driver doing 75 on a 60 when the visibility is great, and no on is around? Not that bad. A poor driver doing 55 on that same road during such a huge downpoor that visibility is about 3 yards, hitting someone and killing them? Bad.

Which is precisely why I defined a situation where everyone is doing the same thing on the same road.

Fine. Make them both going 75 then. If there were doing the exact same thing with the exact same conditions, then there would be no difference. In your example, there is a difference: one of the drivers hit someone.

The other drivers might have been driving just as recklessly, it's hard to say. Because they managed to not hit someone.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby curtis95112 » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:13 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
bentheimmigrant wrote:100 people are driving on the same road, all going over the speed limit. They are all committing the same crime. One of those people hits someone. What action have they taken that was any different from the other 99?

They hit someone.

Spoiler:
Going over some arbitrary limit doesn't mean you were driving dangerously, necessarily. Your reaction time, field of vision, car handling and ability, and current driving conditions all come into play. A skilled driver doing 75 on a 60 when the visibility is great, and no on is around? Not that bad. A poor driver doing 55 on that same road during such a huge downpour that visibility is about 3 yards, hitting someone and killing them? Bad.


Then why punish simple speeding at all? The driver correctly decided he could speed without causing an accident.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

Chen
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby Chen » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:18 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:But is that an action? An actual decision? If the rationale for punishing them comes back to "well, they were speeding", then why isn't the same punishment doled out to all the other people speeding, who were making the same decision to endanger lives as much as the person in the accident?

You can go ahead and define "hitting someone with a car" as a crime, and then say "yeah, they committed that crime", but again, what action did that person take that is any different than all the others?


Hitting someone with a car IS anther crime. Its homicide or at best (for the victim) assault. Regardless of whether or not you were speeding your are charged for another crime, that being harming and/or killing another human being. You can also be charged for speeding if you were also doing that when you hit them. Or driving drunk. Or any number of other things.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Driver who killed girl in accident gets 15 years to life

Postby morriswalters » Wed Jun 20, 2012 5:32 pm UTC

bentheimmigrant wrote:But again, this is only because we feel like the person driving the car which hits another person should be punished. Look at it this way: 100 people are driving on the same road, all going over the speed limit. They are all committing the same crime. One of those people hits someone. What action have they taken that was any different from the other 99?

I guess the easiest way to say this is we punish someone for what they do, not what they might do.(That is of course unless you are a Terrorist)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests