Go back
Consecutive sentences?

Consecutive sentences?

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by utherpendragon
being .08 bac which is legally drunk doesnt fit into this scenario of yours. this sounds like someone who is about 3x the legal limit.
I agree. I think the system is a joke. It is designed as a taxing system to fill the coffers of cities and states; nothing more and nothing less. If no damages occur, nothing should be done. Once damages occur, no leniency.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm sure if your children were without the love and comfort of their mother for the rest of their lives as a result of some ass-wipe three-time offender who decided it was okay to get crap-faced drunk, drive at excessive speeds and blow through red lights as he plowed into your wife's car--- thereby killing her--- you would comfort yourself and your childr ...[text shortened]... life-affirming human being.

Sorry: I value life a hell of a lot more than you do, I guess.
If it happened to me, I'd want the mo-fo skinned alive. But that's not the point. The justice system cannot be based on what the victim wants.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
If it happened to me, I'd want the mo-fo skinned alive. But that's not the point. The justice system cannot be based on what the victim wants.
Two swings, two misses. The measure of love is response-based--- decidedly not reactionary-based. The justice system is a loose approximation of a more concrete form of reality: God is aggrieved; what does God want?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Of course, we could invoke chaos theory and the butterfly effect here and just say everyone should get the death penalty because everyone is at least indirectly the cause of the death of others.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

My cousins 2 children were hit by a drunken woman right in their own front lawn,,,,
she had several convictions already,, I'd have wanted her shot,, sorry, you have to be in their shoes I guess...

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I agree. I think the system is a joke. It is designed as a taxing system to fill the coffers of cities and states; nothing more and nothing less. If no damages occur, nothing should be done. Once damages occur, no leniency.
That's a pretty odd brand of justice. So if for e.g. an employer is not following safety regulations, he should not be fined, but if some deadly accident occurs because regulations were not followed, he should be tried for murder?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That's a pretty odd brand of justice. So if for e.g. an employer is not following safety regulations, he should not be fined, but if some deadly accident occurs because regulations were not followed, he should be tried for murder?
Get rid of the safety regs.

If an employee causes the death of another employee he should be tried for manslaughter same as would happen should the incident occur outside work

If an employee causes his own death, thems the breaks eh. If an employer has a bad track record you know what you're letting yourself in for if you choose to work there.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Get rid of the safety regs.

If an employee causes the death of another employee he should be tried for manslaughter same as would happen should the incident occur outside work

If an employee causes his own death, thems the breaks eh. If an employer has a bad track record you know what you're letting yourself in for if you choose to work there.
That's an excellent idea, so employers would have to choose between not being competitive, or risking the lives of their employees and a prison sentence. Wajomastan would be a lovely place, though you'd might have to fence it to stop people from fleeing.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That's an excellent idea, so employers would have to choose between not being competitive, or risking the lives of their employees and a prison sentence. Wajomastan would be a lovely place, though you'd might have to fence it to stop people from fleeing.
I don't think you quite understand the concept of the non-initation of force. The fence would represent an initiation of force. Maybe we're getting a bit too abstract for you.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
I don't think you quite understand the concept of the non-initation of force. The fence would represent an initiation of force. Maybe we're getting a bit too abstract for you.
I'm sure those dead miners in China would agree.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm sure those dead miners in China would agree.
Mining is a dangerous business.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Mining is a dangerous business.
Yes, equally dangerous everywhere regardless of regulation and enforcement. But you aren't truly free unless you're dead, right?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, equally dangerous everywhere regardless of regulation and enforcement. But you aren't truly free unless you're dead, right?
You're being very silly tonight, dead people can't agree or disagree with anything, and if you think so it's a debate for the spirituality board.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
You're being very silly tonight, dead people can't agree or disagree with anything, and if you think so it's a debate for the spirituality board.
They could be approximately dead?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Wajoma
Get rid of the safety regs.

If an employee causes the death of another employee he should be tried for manslaughter same as would happen should the incident occur outside work

If an employee causes his own death, thems the breaks eh. If an employer has a bad track record you know what you're letting yourself in for if you choose to work there.
The present system where we have less dead people and less people in prison then would be the case under your proposal seems preferable.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.