Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The law is do not murder, which is unlawful killing.

Thanks, yes, this is more correct than what I posted above.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?

The need for vengeance is a natural part of the human psyche. Part of the function of the justice system is to reassure the victims and their families that the system works--which seems like vengeance until you're the one who's wronged.

Knowing the little snit who killed his entire purpose in life is just going to therapy while enjoying the prime of his life, the prime he stole from a little girl, has got to be like salt in a wound. It's not like the dad can console himself by saying his loved ones' deaths served a purpose or prevented a worse tragedy--the (unrepentant?) murderer is still running free to hurt more people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Meanwhile nobody mentioned that the father/husband of 2 of the people killed equates healing with punishment... nobody? No? Is that what "healing" passes for these days? Vengeance?

Is this the best we can do for blaming the victim these days?

I thought it was a bit strange that the guy put himself back to "week 1", but then again this guy has had his family destroyed and the person that does it gets to walk away.

I'm not blaming the victim, I think the sentence, assuming the judge actually has good intentions of trying to rehabilitate the kid, was a good one, but at the same time I think the "victims" reaction is indicative/representative of the problem in the US regarding the justice system.

The kid killed 4 people and crippled 2 more at 16 years old. 10 years of probation isn't even enough for rehabilitation for someone so broken, let alone justice. Besides, DUI has a tremendously high recidivism rate.

Frankly, I don't think every criminal deserves to be rehabilitated and released, and certainly not in a decade or under for ruining 6 lives.

yeah.. you murder 4 people, I dont care what the excuse is,

aww, you were drunk? mommy and daddy didnt love you enough, or too much? oh it was with a car, so its an "accident"?

too flipping bad... if a kid stabs or shoots someone, we all freak out and want to over throw the 2nd amendmant... and hang the sucker...

but every year, after year after year, when far far far more people die to drunk drivers then guns, we keep slapping the drunk driver offenders on the wrist.... allowing them to repeat their habits...

we wouldnt let some gun murderer off the hook, so why do we constantly let car murderers off the hook?

I don't think you know what "murder" is.

While killing someone, or multiple people, while drunk driving isn't legally murder, it certainly is an easily avoidable situation that doesn't bother me if the person carries the stigma of having murdered people.

If he were just getting the probation and some counselling I might have a bigger issue, but the fact that he's being separated from his parents and put in a facility seems alright, maybe leaning toward lenient. If the doctors fail then he'll probably break his probation and get thrown in jail anyway.

Though I do think the parents should be punished somehow, if they're supposedly to blame. Seems only fair that if the kid's not going to feel the full force of the law for killing four people and maiming two others, the parents should take some of it.

 iproxtaco wrote:
If he were just getting the probation and some counselling I might have a bigger issue, but the fact that he's being separated from his parents and put in a facility seems alright, maybe leaning toward lenient. If the doctors fail then he'll probably break his probation and get thrown in jail anyway.

Though I do think the parents should be punished somehow, if they're supposedly to blame. Seems only fair that if the kid's not going to feel the full force of the law for killing four people and maiming two others, the parents should take some of it.

If/when he breaks his probation, he will only be caught when he injures or kills more people. If your child was killed by this guy when he was supposed to be on probation, how would you feel? How could you possibly believe in the system anymore if it was so negligent?

Affluenza sounds very elitist an un-PC. I suggest this form of malady be renamed Assluenza so not to exclude the poor.

Honestly ,don't blame the parents, are they to blame for him choosing to drink, and then choosing to drive? No , he chose to do it himself. Let the little snotrag learn a lesson, trouble is the judge decided not to teach him a lesson

Honestly ,all these "suffering rich kids" need to go live with dirt poor kids for a summer to get some perspective.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 iproxtaco wrote:
If he were just getting the probation and some counselling I might have a bigger issue, but the fact that he's being separated from his parents and put in a facility seems alright, maybe leaning toward lenient. If the doctors fail then he'll probably break his probation and get thrown in jail anyway.

Though I do think the parents should be punished somehow, if they're supposedly to blame. Seems only fair that if the kid's not going to feel the full force of the law for killing four people and maiming two others, the parents should take some of it.

If/when he breaks his probation, he will only be caught when he injures or kills more people.

It's a possibility. I don't know how effective the doctors and counseling will be. I don't necessarily think twenty years in prison is the answer, considering there's still a chance he'll run someone over after jail time.

If your child was killed by this guy when he was supposed to be on probation, how would you feel? How could you possibly believe in the system anymore if it was so negligent?

We're arguing this after the fact, it lends a different perspective, at least to me. Before sentence was passed I'd probably be a lot harsher. I mean, he still killed four people, and injured another so badly they can't walk or talk. The sentence has been passed now, though. I'm not really sure if this kid needs punishment or actual help. Jail time would punish him, but then all you've got at the end of it is a thirty something man who spent the best years of his life in prison for some stupid mistakes he made when he was still a kid. I think the best result is some form of rehabilitation. I'm not saying he has a mental illness from being spoiled or anything stupid like that, but maybe his parental influence wasn't that great, maybe the best option really is to take him out of that environment where stealing cars and booze and driving whilst drunk and underage is acceptable, and get him some help.

Look, I'm actually only a few years older than him. I sympathize. Not many people have their heads screwed on straight at sixteen. I didn't. I can understand how one mistake whilst hanging out with a few friends can escalate. I'm thinking about the end result here. What do we want to come of this? Four dead people, one disabled person, and one, bitter blacklisted former inmate who might have spent more time behind bars than outside of them by the time he gets out? Or do we want at least something positive to come of this, however small, and try and turn some poorly adjusted teenager into a decent member of society?

It's not like I don't understand people who want to just throw him in jail. He's sixteen, but they were all his decisions, and I don't deny that maybe some form of actual justice might be needed.

 iproxtaco wrote:

I don't necessarily think twenty years in prison is the answer, considering there's still a chance he'll run someone over after jail time.

Also, I'm not sure how prison is over in the UK, but here, you can't get anything but the crappiest jobs if you have a felony. It's literally on every application I've ever applied for, from fast food jobs to Fortune 500 companies. That makes for people who quickly become desperate enough to become repeat offenders.

For current society, there's no future for felons in this country, and it makes it worse for the rest of society.

In a way, this is refreshing. I mean, we've always suspected that in this country there is a de facto different criminal justice system for the affluent than there is for the rest of us, and now finally we have some honesty and openness to the process, when a murderer is now flat out declared too wealthy to jail.

I think this is a big step forward for us.

In an ideal word, as other posters have mentioned he'd be looking at 4 counts of murder as an adult. Better yet for him to be tried as a black adult, if we're wishlisting.

 Ouze wrote:
In a way, this is refreshing. I mean, we've always suspected that in this country there is a de facto different criminal justice system for the affluent than there is for the rest of us, and now finally we have some honesty and openness to the process, when a murderer is now flat out declared too wealthy to jail.

I think this is a big step forward for us.

In an ideal word, as other posters have mentioned he'd be looking at 4 counts of murder as an adult. Better yet for him to be tried as a black adult, if we're wishlisting.

Is this one of the benefits to having a transparent administration?

I think a fair amount of blame is on society itself for deciding that 16 year olds are two years too young to sign legal binding documents but are somehow responsible enough to drive motorized vehicles weighing thousands of pounds at high speeds.

Bullockist wrote:
Is this one of the benefits to having a transparent administration?

Well, this wasn't a federal judge. This is more of a Texas issue (although the flexibility of justice when confronted with wealth isn't, of course)

 Kanluwen wrote:
And "on balance", prosecutors tend to overreach in terms of what charges they file/sentences they suggest when it comes to high profile cases. Judges have the ability to reduce the sentencing structure or suggest alternatives to the juries.

I'm not going to say that I think there should be no jailtime here, but I really think this case is being played up for publicity's sake as a "class warfare" thing. There is every chance that the sentencing given by the judge here was as harsh as it could be considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and the prosecution overreaching in terms of what charges they filed.

He killed four people through wildly reckless behaviour. I don't think its at all speculative to say that such a thing would almost always result in some kind of penalty that wasn't suspended, particularly if the defendant was poor.

But we have special rules for rich people, not just because they can afford better legal representation, but just because.

I'm not saying he shouldn't have therapy and rehabilitation. I'm saying that should be the tail end of a serious prison term. If he gets out of jail with the prime of his life behind him and few prospects, he will be in a far better position than his victims.

Doesn't this set a precedent for future cases where a rich 20 something kills a hooker and goes on a drunken rampage?

"Oh I'm sorry your honor, but my client has affluenza"

 daedalus wrote:

 iproxtaco wrote:

I don't necessarily think twenty years in prison is the answer, considering there's still a chance he'll run someone over after jail time.

Also, I'm not sure how prison is over in the UK, but here, you can't get anything but the crappiest jobs if you have a felony. It's literally on every application I've ever applied for, from fast food jobs to Fortune 500 companies. That makes for people who quickly become desperate enough to become repeat offenders.

For current society, there's no future for felons in this country, and it makes it worse for the rest of society.

I'm not sure how a criminal record affects a job application but I know every job I've ever applied for has asked if I've had one. I'm gonna say it reflects negatively, just a hunch, but I don't know how difficult job finding is made.

A friend (don't laugh) of mine posted this on Facebook, and may be of interest.

I heard something on the radio which you'll find interesting. Had the judge given the teen the 20 year sentence, he would have been eligible for parole in 2 years. However, with the sentence given he will be in the system for the full 10 years.

 Ahtman wrote:
A friend (don't laugh) of mine posted this on Facebook, and may be of interest.

I heard something on the radio which you'll find interesting. Had the judge given the teen the 20 year sentence, he would have been eligible for parole in 2 years. However, with the sentence given he will be in the system for the full 10 years.

edit... dakka fail.

 Ouze wrote:

Bullockist wrote:
Is this one of the benefits to having a transparent administration?

Well, this wasn't a federal judge. This is more of a Texas issue (although the flexibility of justice when confronted with wealth isn't, of course)

I didn't know it was Texas until you mentioned it. I thought "I bet its Dallas" and womp there it was. Color me unsurprised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And "on balance", prosecutors tend to overreach in terms of what charges they file/sentences they suggest when it comes to high profile cases. Judges have the ability to reduce the sentencing structure or suggest alternatives to the juries.

I'm not going to say that I think there should be no jailtime here, but I really think this case is being played up for publicity's sake as a "class warfare" thing. There is every chance that the sentencing given by the judge here was as harsh as it could be considering the evidence presented by the prosecution and the prosecution overreaching in terms of what charges they filed.

He killed four people through wildly reckless behaviour. I don't think its at all speculative to say that such a thing would almost always result in some kind of penalty that wasn't suspended, particularly if the defendant was poor.

But we have special rules for rich people, not just because they can afford better legal representation, but just because.

This is the exact sort of reason so many states have mandatory sentencing laws.

 Ahtman wrote:
A friend (don't laugh) of mine posted this on Facebook, and may be of interest.

I heard something on the radio which you'll find interesting. Had the judge given the teen the 20 year sentence, he would have been eligible for parole in 2 years. However, with the sentence given he will be in the system for the full 10 years.

How likely would that have been though? Still an interesting point.

 Ahtman wrote:
A friend (don't laugh) of mine posted this on Facebook, and may be of interest.

I heard something on the radio which you'll find interesting. Had the judge given the teen the 20 year sentence, he would have been eligible for parole in 2 years. However, with the sentence given he will be in the system for the full 10 years.

I personally would have rather seen him visit a prison for 2 years than living the life he would on parole for 10, but I'm not at all affected by this so I have no clue what those involved would prefer.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:

I personally would have rather seen him visit a prison for 2 years than living the life he would on parole for 10, but I'm not at all affected by this so I have no clue what those involved would prefer.

He would likely have been placed in juvenile detention for 2 years. After that he would have been transferred to an adult detention facility. I believe in some states, potentially including Texas, this subjects the sentence to mandatory review which may end in parole.

For what its worth, being placed in a treatment facility for 10 years means he likely won't be able to hold a job until he is 26, meaning that he will have to explain 2-8 years of white space (depending on education options offered by the facility itself) to any potential employer or school.

While it's true that he wasn't, like, 100% free of any consequence, I still maintain the best solution would have been to have him locked in a room with a Sister of Battle and a lighter, to answer for his crimes before receiving the Emperor's Mercy.

 Ouze wrote:
While it's true that he wasn't, like, 100% free of any consequence, I still maintain the best solution would have been to have him locked in a room with a Sister of Battle and a lighter, to answer for his crimes before receiving the Emperor's Mercy.

Another thing I just thought of is that, while he can be kept as a ward of the treatment facility until he is 18, that might not be possible after the fact; it really depends on the conditions of his probation.

You think they might say, on his 18th birthday, that his defense was right: that his Affluenza is so severe that he might need to stay committed for another 4 or 5 years?

 Ouze wrote:
You think they might say, on his 18th birthday, that his defense was right: that his Affluenza is so severe that he might need to stay committed for another 4 or 5 years?

I was thinking that his probation might stipulate that he remains committed for the 10 year duration, and that any noncompliance with staff be considered a violation. In that instance, if he did fail to comply (and he will, at least once), he would end up in jail as a violator of probation; which usually messes with the parole schedule and wouldn't look good at his hypothetical transfer review.

Of course, I don't know if any of that is part of the offenders probation, or even could be, I'm just engaging in a slightly more complicated bit of legitimate schadenfreude...and also hypothesizing as to the reasoning behind the verdict.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Doesn't this set a precedent for future cases where a rich 20 something kills a hooker and goes on a drunken rampage?

"Oh I'm sorry your honor, but my client has affluenza"

You think a lawyer hasn't stopped that low yet?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

You think a lawyer hasn't stopped that low yet?

That case is all kinds of fethed up. It is a lawyer's duty to defend his client even if he finds the act distasteful, but Scarpa made no bones about his disregard for the law; he seemed like a (bad) mob lawyer.

This is his law office.

It presents images and statements that specifically relate to police pursuit, intoxication, and drug use; suggesting that Mr. Scarpa can successfully defend people from those charges.

Given the defense Mr. Scarpa mounted in this case he obviously had no intention of defending his client, only billing him.