I have been thinking about our legal system and how it seems to value one life verse another.

I welcome posters adding other scenarios as I do not want this to be too focused on my hypothetical one.


Here is a scenario:

Driver was not paying attention, (Irrelevant of reason why), and kills a person with their negligence. Driver agrees it is their fault and accepts responsibility.


Here is a common penalty:

Person is DEAD --- Driver gets 40 years in prison for vehicular manslaughter.


Here is the question:

Does this result, 40 years in prison verse being dead, equate to saying that the person killed is "worth" less than the person they were killed by?



Is there a place for "life for a life"?
Is the idea that it is technically called an "accident" make it more forgivable?
Is it important not ruin the driver's life after they have killed another human being?



Please introduce other scenarios, but still focus on the different value of the end results:

One person is DEAD --- the other, who killed them, gets ___________ punishment.

A Minor Threat

No. Kill yourself. Because YOU are WORTHless, to this site.

How's that for another scenario? LOL! Bitch.

VIEW! LIKE! SUBSCRIBE - www.youtube.com/assassass420aa

I am curious about postpoppunk. He has a bizarre writing style, he has poor communication skills, and he seems to have some sort of attachment disorder. I can't imagine what he is like in a social setting. I bet he has to take anti-anxiety medication just to cope with morning traffic.

postpoppunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Does this result, 40 years in prison verse being
> dead, equate to saying that the person killed is
> "worth" less than the person they were killed by?
>

Of course not. The sentence is not based on a victim's value, but on the crime.

Otherwise, how would you handle this scenario? Driver A hits a patch of ice and careens into a car. The car is pushed over an embankment and Driver B and two passengers die. Would you kill Driver A and two of his/her family members?

lol, all of his threads seem to be written in riddles and shit..and people rarely take interest in them. It's almost sad, but then on the other hand it's HILARIOUS!

He realizes how much attention my posts garner so he had to close and impersonate me for attention, aw. I'm flattered AND creeped out.

Still, he is worthless and a waste of life.

Suck a dick up til you hiccup, postOPunk

VIEW! LIKE! SUBSCRIBE - www.youtube.com/assassass420aa

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> postpoppunk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Does this result, 40 years in prison verse
> being
> > dead, equate to saying that the person killed
> is
> > "worth" less than the person they were killed
> by?
> >
>
> Of course not. The sentence is not based on a
> victim's value, but on the crime.
>
> Otherwise, how would you handle this scenario?
> Driver A hits a patch of ice and careens into a
> car. The car is pushed over an embankment and
> Driver B and two passengers die. Would you kill
> Driver A and two of his/her family members?

Chris Dorner would, LOL!



Oh wait.............












Burn baby burn! Aww..R.I.P, poor guy!

VIEW! LIKE! SUBSCRIBE - www.youtube.com/assassass420aa

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> postpoppunk Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Does this result, 40 years in prison verse
> being
> > dead, equate to saying that the person killed
> is
> > "worth" less than the person they were killed
> by?
> >
>
> Of course not. The sentence is not based on a
> victim's value, but on the crime.
>
> Otherwise, how would you handle this scenario?
> Driver A hits a patch of ice and careens into a
> car. The car is pushed over an embankment and
> Driver B and two passengers die. Would you kill
> Driver A and two of his/her family members?


See, your scenario (Thanks for even making one) is where it was not in the drivers control.

IMO, the difference is that in my original scenario the driver is at 100% fault, realizes that they are and even takes complete responsibility.

In your scenario, it really is an "Accident".



Other similar scenarios:

1. Driver A is driving legally and does not pay attention for a moment, which causes the driver to strike and kill a pedestrian legally crossing the crosswalk. Result - pedestrian DEAD, driver 40 years in prison.

Change one thing and I think peoples' opinions change:

2. Driver A is driving DRUNK and does not pay attention for a moment, which causes the driver to strike and kill a pedestrian legally crossing the crosswalk. Result - pedestrian DEAD, driver 40 years in prison.

And --- if the driver is 16 or 50 - does that change anything? 16 year old gets out at 56 --- 50 year old most likely dies in prison.

A Minor Threat

Let's change my scenario; Driver A was texting while driving, failed to see a light change, and hit Driver B. Same outcome. If Driver A "pays" for Driver B's life with their own life, how do they "pay" for the lives of the passengers?

Again, it is the severity of the crime that determines the appropriate punishment. Failing to pay full time attention puts others at risk. It is also something everyone is guilty of. Should we imprison a teen that hits a barrier while texting? Or just fine them for the cost of repairs? They are guilty of the same offense as Driver A.

Unless there is malice, I think it is an accident. You could always argue that the driver did something wrong. Were they driving too fast for conditions when they hit the ice? Were the tires bald? Was it late at night and their responses were slow due to exhaustion?

I think it is a complicated subject --- not that either one of us would be right or wrong about in the end.

In your new scenario:

Let's change my scenario; Driver A was texting while driving, failed to see a light change, and hit Driver B. Same outcome. If Driver A "pays" for Driver B's life with their own life, how do they "pay" for the lives of the passengers?

Now , we have Driver A killing multiple people. Lets say they killed Driver B and 2 other passengers = 3 DEAD. What is the appropriate punishment?

Is Driver A getting 30 years in prison reasonable?


I am not saying it SHOULD be a "Life for a Life", just that it strikes me odd that a person can get various punishments for the death of another person.

It is based on fault and negligence:

Scenario:

Person A shoots an arrow up in the sky just for fun, no harm intended --- it hits and kills a neighbor. They are at fault, were negligent in their actions, which resulted in someone else dead.

How is it justified to have Person A go to jail for 25 years, with chance for parole for good behavior?

A Minor Threat



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2013 10:39PM by postpoppunk.