10 May '15 19:11>1 edit
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueAccidental death due to reckless behaviour is not murder, at least not in most legal systems.
22? That's not a girl. That's a woman. Sentence like an adult.
And drunk? That's neither an accident nor manslaughter. That's murder. Sentence like murder.
Sixty to life. Let the tw*tting bitch rot.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraLegally speaking, no it isn't, which is why she wasn't convicted for that.
Accidental death due to reckless behaviour is not murder, at least not in most legal systems.
Originally posted by vivifyShe was certainly reckless and the result was incredibly tragic, but I think 24 years is harsh. I think 10 years would do the trick given the lack of intent.
http://www.unilad.co.uk/articles/girl-who-tweeted-2-drunk-2-care-before-killing-two-in-crash-sentenced-to-24-years/
"Girl who tweeted ‘2 drunk 2 care’ before killing two best friends in a wrong-way car crash has been sentenced to 24 years in prison.
"Kayla Mendoza, 22, boasted on social media about being drunk before she killed Kaitlyn Ferrante and Mar ...[text shortened]... ges, and prior to sentencing she tearfully read a letter to the families of Kaitlyn and Marisa."
Originally posted by Shallow BlueAccidentally causing death while driving drunk is traditionally considered involuntary manslaughter, not murder.
22? That's not a girl. That's a woman. Sentence like an adult.
And drunk? That's neither an accident nor manslaughter. That's murder. Sentence like murder.
Sixty to life. Let the tw*tting bitch rot.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueRecklessness is more than mere "silliness." Recklessness means knowing of a substantial risk to human life and choosing to engage in that risky behavior voluntarily. This describes drunk driving to a T.
Legally speaking, no it isn't, which is why she wasn't convicted for that.
Morally speaking, IMO, it very much is if drunk driving is involved. That's not normal recklessness, that's intentionally putting yourself in a state in which you know you will be reckless, and then getting behind the wheel of a dangerous machine. It's not mere silliness, it's wilful disregard for the lives of others.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueNot necessarily. Many people who drive drunk truly believe that they are under control of themselves; "Please, I drive drunk all the time", or "I've been worse, this is nothing". Drunk drivers often don't think they are being reckless, even though they are.
Legally speaking, no it isn't, which is why she wasn't convicted for that.
that's intentionally putting yourself in a state in which you know you will be reckless
Originally posted by Shallow BlueMost reckless behaviour does not result in people getting killed. What should be done with these people?
Legally speaking, no it isn't, which is why she wasn't convicted for that.
Morally speaking, IMO, it very much is if drunk driving is involved. That's not normal recklessness, that's intentionally putting yourself in a state in which you know you will be reckless, and then getting behind the wheel of a dangerous machine. It's not mere silliness, it's wilful disregard for the lives of others.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueFrom just a print story, it is really hard to figure out how contrite the woman really was, or how completely uncaring she was to begin with.
22? That's not a girl. That's a woman. Sentence like an adult.
And drunk? That's neither an accident nor manslaughter. That's murder. Sentence like murder.
Sixty to life. Let the tw*tting bitch rot.
Originally posted by vivifyWhat you write is true, and I might add that it is not always the drunk driver who causes an accident, although he/she is usually charged for it. Often a cold sober driver, not skilled, or not paying attention may cause an accident with an intoxicated driver. It is unfortunate that the intoxicated driver may not be at fault, but takes the blame in most cases.
Not necessarily. Many people who drive drunk truly believe that they are under control of themselves; "Please, I drive drunk all the time", or "I've been worse, this is nothing". Drunk drivers often don't think they are being reckless, even though they are.
Originally posted by vivifyYes, and that's often brought up as a mitigating circumstance.
Not necessarily. Many people who drive drunk truly believe that they are under control of themselves; "Please, I drive drunk all the time", or "I've been worse, this is nothing". Drunk drivers often don't think they are being reckless, even though they are.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThink about this. We know that some of the worst accidents involve people driving and blowing three or even four times the legal limit. In short, many fatal accidents are caused by people who are very nearly unconscious behind the wheel.
Yes, and that's often brought up as a mitigating circumstance.
My point is that it should be an aggravating one.
It's not as if the effect of alcohol on human behaviour is one of the great secrets of this world. We all know about it. You don't accidentally get yourself sloshed on Long Island Ice Teas and then drive home. You know full well ...[text shortened]... than it is now. Thinking you're safe driving drunk is not an excuse; it makes your crime worse.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueIt is indeed interesting to note how legal systems differ.
Yes, and that's often brought up as a mitigating circumstance.
My point is that it should be an aggravating one.