Experiment 626 wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.

Well, if they didn't even consider that there's an extradition treaty or that Mexican authorities might look for them (and are actually quite competent btw) I'd guess they belong in the second category you described. It's not like the drug trade (to the US) and weapons trade (to Mexico) would mean authorities have any need to identify gringos throwing money around, no way.

As for the rest, a single punch can cause permanent damage or even kill. Striking someone means you have either accepted that risk or lost your cool, not stopping to consider any consequences. Both mean you're a dangerous person. You could ofc also be drunk and kill someone accidentally or otherwise - it's still no excuse. The difference is that while drunk driving is a crime and no excuse it's still not driving with the intent to kill. Usually.

Spoiler:

Only because our drunk driving laws are ancient and in glaring need of updating to modern times.

It's not like drunk driving is something new, or something who's consequences have only recently begun to be fully understood like the current issues surrounding concussions.
Drunk driving & its consequences have been front and center in the public spotlight for decades now. Thousands and thousands of hours of awareness campaigns, graphic videos that explicitly show the end results of crashes caused by impaired drivers, police & EMS education about how even a single drink can drastically effect one's motor skills, etc...

Really, in this day and age, drunk driving should be no different than standard Manslaughter. When you drive drunk, you are purposefully making an incredibly selfish and stupid decision. If you kill another person(s) because of your moronic sense of self entitlement, (ie: it's my right to drive no matter what), then your sorry arse should be locked away for a very long time.
No more of this vehicular manslaughter BS.

Drunk driving/distracted driving is easily the 100% most preventable crime there is.
Being selfish & stupid should not entitle you to a lesser sentence, just because you lost control of a vehicle and butchered innocents, instead of say, drunkenly punching someone in the head who then dies of a brain injury due to the punch/falling & hitting their head.


If this comes off as harsh, well, I've had friends who've lost a family member to a drunk driver. It's horrible trying to deal with the senseless stupidity of that kind of loss, and then seeing the stupid pile of gak get slapped with maybe 2-4 years of prison time/probation.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah, typically the people who successfully hide in Mexico can blend in with the locals. Rich Gringo idiots who were probably publicly staying in a hotel would get caught quickly.

Well, if they didn't even consider that there's an extradition treaty or that Mexican authorities might look for them (and are actually quite competent btw) I'd guess they belong in the second category you described. It's not like the drug trade (to the US) and weapons trade (to Mexico) would mean authorities have any need to identify gringos throwing money around, no way.

As for the rest, a single punch can cause permanent damage or even kill. Striking someone means you have either accepted that risk or lost your cool, not stopping to consider any consequences. Both mean you're a dangerous person. You could ofc also be drunk and kill someone accidentally or otherwise - it's still no excuse. The difference is that while drunk driving is a crime and no excuse it's still not driving with the intent to kill. Usually.

Only because our drunk driving laws are ancient and in glaring need of updating to modern times.

It's not like drunk driving is something new, or something who's consequences have only recently begun to be fully understood like the current issues surrounding concussions.
Drunk driving & its consequences have been front and center in the public spotlight for decades now. Thousands and thousands of hours of awareness campaigns, graphic videos that explicitly show the end results of crashes caused by impaired drivers, police & EMS education about how even a single drink can drastically effect one's motor skills, etc...

Really, in this day and age, drunk driving should be no different than standard Manslaughter. When you drive drunk, you are purposefully making an incredibly selfish and stupid decision. If you kill another person(s) because of your moronic sense of self entitlement, (ie: it's my right to drive no matter what), then your sorry arse should be locked away for a very long time.
No more of this vehicular manslaughter BS.

Drunk driving/distracted driving is easily the 100% most preventable crime there is.
Being selfish & stupid should not entitle you to a lesser sentence, just because you lost control of a vehicle and butchered innocents, instead of say, drunkenly punching someone in the head who then dies of a brain injury due to the punch/falling & hitting their head.


If this comes off as harsh, well, I've had friends who've lost a family member to a drunk driver. It's horrible trying to deal with the senseless stupidity of that kind of loss, and then seeing the stupid pile of gak get slapped with maybe 2-4 years of prison time/probation.

 Talizvar wrote:
Who knows, I just figure if you kill someone you should take steps to NEVER do anything like that again.

 Talizvar wrote:
In Canada criminal code section 255 sub-section 3:
Any "Impaired Driving Causing Death" = "life imprisonment".

Spetulhu wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Who knows, I just figure if you kill someone you should take steps to NEVER do anything like that again.

Well, we could go back to Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye". If an engineer builds a house that collapses and kills the owner the engineer shall be put to death and all that. Oh, you say engineers usually just hide behind the company which gets to pay reparations if it even still exists when the building collapses?

Personally I'd be more for the ancient germanic/nordic weregild in cases where death wasn't the intention - someone who kills a person can get away with it if he pays the remaining family a hefty sum of money. If he doesn't want to negotiate how to pay he's declared a varg (wolf) and can be killed by any free man who does it openly.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Who knows, I just figure if you kill someone you should take steps to NEVER do anything like that again.

Well, we could go back to Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye". If an engineer builds a house that collapses and kills the owner the engineer shall be put to death and all that. Oh, you say engineers usually just hide behind the company which gets to pay reparations if it even still exists when the building collapses?

Personally I'd be more for the ancient germanic/nordic weregild in cases where death wasn't the intention - someone who kills a person can get away with it if he pays the remaining family a hefty sum of money. If he doesn't want to negotiate how to pay he's declared a varg (wolf) and can be killed by any free man who does it openly.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Who knows, I just figure if you kill someone you should take steps to NEVER do anything like that again.

Well, we could go back to Hammurabi's "an eye for an eye". If an engineer builds a house that collapses and kills the owner the engineer shall be put to death and all that. Oh, you say engineers usually just hide behind the company which gets to pay reparations if it even still exists when the building collapses?

Personally I'd be more for the ancient germanic/nordic weregild in cases where death wasn't the intention - someone who kills a person can get away with it if he pays the remaining family a hefty sum of money. If he doesn't want to negotiate how to pay he's declared a varg (wolf) and can be killed by any free man who does it openly.

We don't really need to add direct physical murder to the list of crimes the rich can pay to get out of, do we?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, I think we might be getting this wrong.
Me and my friend looked up the laws, And apparently where the trial took place, a minor actually cant get jail time for manslaughter, even with drunk driving

 dogma wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
In Canada criminal code section 255 sub-section 3:
Any "Impaired Driving Causing Death" = "life imprisonment".

No, that isn't what it says. The phrase "liable to imprisonment for life." means that a given individual may, if convicted, may be subject to life imprisonment. It does not mean that they must be subject to life imprisonment.

 Orlanth wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
In Canada criminal code section 255 sub-section 3:
Any "Impaired Driving Causing Death" = "life imprisonment".

No, that isn't what it says. The phrase "liable to imprisonment for life." means that a given individual may, if convicted, may be subject to life imprisonment. It does not mean that they must be subject to life imprisonment.

Which makes more sense as impairment might not be the fault of the driver. eg spiked drinks.

 Frazzled wrote:
Not that I am aware of and thats partially the point.

 Compel wrote:
What does probation mean in American terms? Is it a case of, "if you do something naughty in the next X months, we'll be really cross with you."

Or is it something more than that? Like, for example, community service.

 Compel wrote:
What does probation mean in American terms? Is it a case of, "if you do something naughty in the next X months, we'll be really cross with you.".

 jhe90 wrote:
Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail

 Ouze wrote:
supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.

 jhe90 wrote:
Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail

Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.

 jhe90 wrote:
Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail

Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.

I think it's also called a "suspended sentence" in some places? I think that's what we call it here in Oklahoma.

 jhe90 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.

 jhe90 wrote:
Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail

Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.

I think it's also called a "suspended sentence" in some places? I think that's what we call it here in Oklahoma.

Still nothing light, uk suspended sentence still means a single foot wrong can get you back in jail fast, for full term suspennded from several weeks to years in jail. Not a minor legal sanction

 jhe90 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.

 jhe90 wrote:
Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail

Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.

I think it's also called a "suspended sentence" in some places? I think that's what we call it here in Oklahoma.

Still nothing light, uk suspended sentence still means a single foot wrong can get you back in jail fast, for full term suspended from several weeks to years in jail. Not a minor legal sanction

 Grey Templar wrote:

Thats how probation is, depending on what you are on probation for. Violating it can land in very hot water.

Relapse wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
supervision. The person has to check in with a probation officer every so often, generally has to comply with drug tests and such, and so on.

 jhe90 wrote:
Far as I know its like a suspended sentence, we let you out supervised and under our watch, do anything wrong it's back to jail

Here this is called an ACD - Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. It's similar to probation except the original sentence is pending. If there are no violations, the original charge is dismissed. If a new violation occurs, you have to answer for both the original violation as well as the new one. It's different than a final sentencing of probation in that the original charge is not pending, it's been sentenced and done.

I think it's also called a "suspended sentence" in some places? I think that's what we call it here in Oklahoma.

Still nothing light, uk suspended sentence still means a single foot wrong can get you back in jail fast, for full term suspennded from several weeks to years in jail. Not a minor legal sanction

The nastiest UK case I can think of are those two boys who laid the toddler on the railroad tracks and got let out, apparently to some public outcry, years later. Didn't one of them get into trouble almost right away and go back to jail?