Two people killed through speeding, you wont believe the length of this sentence.

[Laize]

It certainly can make you feel good.

So does cocaine.

Exactly. See? You get it.

[LeginNoslen]

Question, what should the purpose of the justice system be?

a) rehabilitate
or
b) vengeance

or
c) A cheap source of labor

[Jaxi]

Nothing needs to be done for the victims family. There is a court case and we try to make the best of a bad situation by jailing, but focusing on rehabilitating the criminal.

Someone already stated earlier that it is hard to rehabilitate stupidity.

[syn1k]

His previous speeding conviction resulted in a £75 fine and 6 points (not the usual 3 due to the length he'd had his licence for).

which would be consistent w/ no rehabilitation and only punishment which is what my original assumption was that i was called out on.

[Moadar]

Nothing needs to be done for the victims family. There is a court case and we try to make the best of a bad situation by jailing, but focusing on rehabilitating the criminal.

So tax money and energy are focused on making the criminals life better and we let the victims suffer. For some reason I'm not ok with that.

[Themius]

I've never driven drunk, but I was given a DUI for working on my automobile right outside my house while I was buzzed. There was no driving, but the keys were in the ignition. Obviously, I wasn't even in the car. Should I go to prison for 10 years? Am I a criminal?

Absolutely, you could have gotten in and killed someone! /sarcasm.

[Deleted]

Someone already stated earlier that it is hard to rehabilitate stupidity.

And yet they gave no explanation as to why it's more difficult than any other problem, it's not more difficult, you just go about it differently.

[Laize]

For drunk driving, I want to see them get a minimum of 10 years.

I've gotten a DUI for driving .01 over the legal limit.

No one was around and the cop manufactured a reason to pull me over over a taillight. I wasn't swerving or doing anything out of the ordinary. The cop just saw me leave a bar.

Funny story, I got out of the DUI because the cop's dashcam (Which my lawyer subpoena'd) showed there was nothing wrong with my taillight and he, thus, had no reason to pull me over. Even got the town to pay his fees and reimburse me for the towing expense.

Lawyers are awesome fellows when they're on your payroll.

I don't think the punishment for DUI should be nearly as harsh as it is. At least in NJ.

[Themius]

So tax money and energy are focused on making the criminals life better and we let the victims suffer. For some reason I'm not ok with that.

Well rehab 1) cost less than prison and 2) has long term benefits.

You see when you rehabilitate a person, you don't need to lock them up for extended periods of time, which means that ex-criminal goes out into the world and works and pays taxes back into the government, thereby becoming a productive member of society contributing to the country. Why would you not want criminals to be rehabilitated and made productive members of society? Is it because you only give a shit about vengeance and are incapable of thinking objectively?

[Theodon]

Someone already stated earlier that it is hard to rehabilitate stupidity.

I wouldn't see it as being hard if the person feels remorse. I doubt he will be speeding if he ever drives again if it was simply stupidity that made him speed in the first place. Stupidity is often cured by consequences of said stupidity.

[geewhiz80]

I've never driven drunk, but I was given a DUI for working on my automobile right outside my house while I was buzzed. There was no driving, but the keys were in the ignition. Obviously, I wasn't even in the car. Should I go to prison for 10 years? Am I a criminal?

Did you kill anyone by not driving your vehicle? No? Then I'd say the legal punishment should be more lenient, that said, some rules to determine(such as your case) DUI are rather stupid.

[Kalis]

So, he wasn't necessarily racing (in the purest sense). He was still driving exceptionally recklessly at high speeds. I don't see how this changes anything.

He wasn't racing, and the relevance is that he was neither racing, nor drunk, as keeps getting mentioned in this thread.

He was driving carelessly, which is what he was prosecuted for.

Was the sentence too lenient? In my opinion it is lenient. But at least judge him on what happened, and not some bullshit interpretation.

[Shiny212]

Honestly I think the sentence is appropriate. If he's a psycho and enjoyed what he did he should be forced into an institution, but if he's just a normal person who was reckless he'll regret this for the rest of his life and you can bet that the prison sentence serves well as a deterrent...

---------- Post added 2013-02-28 at 11:29 PM ----------

Two people are dead and more injured because of pure stupidity that could have been avoided with a bit of common sense. Those families are scarred forever, but the worst this young man will face a few months in jail, and you can pretty much bet he will be out sooner than that on 'good behavior'.

It isn't like this person was driving the limit on super slippery winter roads, lost control and hit some people in a sidewalk as a result. With signs posted of speed limits he chose to blatantly disregard them and this is the result. Such a short sentence insulting to the families and the deceased to say the least. A min of 5 years with a loss of his license for at minimum 10 years seems far more reasonable. The debate of he has to live with it forever could be brought up, but with how many people are, it's very possible once this is over he will think nothing of it.

And rehabilitation is pointless in far too many cases and doesn't do anything to make people better. How exactly can the system rehabilitate stupidity?

Capital punishment.

[yurano]

Was the sentence too lenient? In my opinion it is lenient. But at least judge him on what happened, and not some bullshit interpretation.

The direct interpretation was reckless driving. Racing was used to denote that he was doing it with someone else. Sorry if my loose word choice offends you.

compared to the gross negligence involved in speeding 60 in a 30 zone with reckless driving (racing).

[draynay]

He wasn't racing, and the relevance is that he was neither racing, nor drunk, as keeps getting mentioned in this thread.

He was driving carelessly, which is what he was prosecuted for.

Was the sentence too lenient? In my opinion it is lenient. But at least judge him on what happened, and not some bullshit interpretation.

the intent of my comments was that I did not care about such minutiae and labeling, whether they want to say racing or not doesn't matter to me, a pretty clear picture has already been painted, if you want to adhere to no racing, whatever, what he was doing sounds like racing to me, but it doesn't matter, I'm only going off of what I read, not imagining anything else in addition to what is in the article

[Moinaldo]

I've never driven drunk, but I was given a DUI for working on my automobile right outside my house while I was buzzed. There was no driving, but the keys were in the ignition. Obviously, I wasn't even in the car. Should I go to prison for 10 years? Am I a criminal?

No offense dude, but, are you retarded? you are stating that there was no driving involved... we are saying drunk driving should be punished, so where does your story fit here?

[draynay]

No offense dude

what other lies do you have for us today

[Moadar]

Well rehab 1) cost less than prison and 2) has long term benefits.

You see when you rehabilitate a person, you don't need to lock them up for extended periods of time, which means that ex-criminal goes out into the world and works and pays taxes back into the government, thereby becoming a productive member of society contributing to the country. Why would you not want criminals to be rehabilitated and made productive members of society? Is it because you only give a shit about vengeance and are incapable of thinking objectively?

No it's because I care about the people that lost something precious because of someone else's greedy and uncaring actions. The only people that benefit from what you describe are the criminal and the government.

[tekoix]

What kind of punishment do you want? They should be drawn and quartered? Put away for life?

Killed, just like the same that they killed others. Drunk driving is not an accident, you are accountable for your actions.

[Puri]

He was not driving fast to kill people. He was driving too fast because he was careless and lightheaded.

He is 18, I am pretty sure speeding is one of the lesser things of bad things people do - especially at this age. You cannot expect them to be sensible, especially to gauge the grave consequences of a everyday crime, which is by far an exception and not the rule to happen.

If he is a decent person, no punishment you can inflict on him will be that bad as the deaths of those people on his conscience for the rest of his life.

You can be pretty sure - if he even dares to drive again - he will never be speeding again.

So what would the purpose of a harsher punishment be? It would only satisfy some people's eager for vengeance.