You be the Judge: What is the appropiate punishment for something like this? - Page 6

SlowwHand · June 28, 2003, 00:26

She screwed the pooch, no question.

Zylka · June 28, 2003, 00:29

Quote:

What Mallard did was as bad as shooting the guy. She hit him, and then instead of getting help, she took him away to her house, hid him, refused to give him medical attention and waited until he died. She consciously and purposely hindered any attempts to aid him. Not only that, but in hitting him, she owed a duty to him, and she failed to perform that duty at all and instead, as I said, hindered it.

She could have logically shot him in the head upon arrival, saving the crippled & bleeding horse 40+ hours of intense pain none of us can ever imagine. Hell, that way no one has to go to the hospital and be cured - and no one has to die moaning in a garage!

Oh yeah, and that wouldn't be murder either - because she didn't intend on his cranium and brain getting in the way of the speeding piece of lead she just released. Also, what fun is sex with your boyfriend when there's someone potentially alive and listening a wall away?

Berzerker · June 28, 2003, 00:40

Drogue -

Quote:

No, I believe justice should serve a purpose. What purpose does locking her up serve? Revenge, plain and simple. And that is it. Can't you understand that some people feel compassion? Some people believe in determinism too, whoch means that they do not believe she is able to control, nor should be responsible for her actions.

Determinism? You mean, like the planets were aligned or something? Then maybe it's determinism that she spend a long time in jail.

According to her, she was under the influence of booze and drugs, although the X probably helped sober her up some. Translation: blame the drugs, which then becomes an excuse by drug war pushers to continue incarcerating people who use drugs but don't do what she did. But why should we expect her to take responsibilty, she wouldn't even help the guy and tried to avoid responsibility on that matter too.

But what purpose is served by locking anyone up? I'd agree she doesn't seem like a big threat and maybe she wouldn't ever do something like this again, but that can apply to all sorts of people in jail, even many murderers...we can't read minds.

Now, I do wonder if she drove home, not because she panicked, but because she knew the cops would get her for DUI and prosecutors would try to nail her with manslaughter. I imagine that even if she could have shown it wasn't her fault, she'd still get hit with all sorts of charges. Btw, her excuse, "it was the drugs" is so transparent, she had days to recover and her behavior only became worse. I hate to see someone's life ruined by such a freak accident, but it was what she did after the collision that is reprehensible. She ruined her life and took his all because she wouldn't take responsibilty...but I think the sentence was too harsh. No priors, no intent to hit him, just fear of what would happen to her...15-20 years...

Drogue · June 28, 2003, 00:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
ARE YOU THAT DENSE?!

If you can't see the difference you are an utter moron. In not paying you are 'not helping', in this case, you are 'making things worse'. How can you possibly not see the difference?

How old are you anyway?

I'm 18. And dense? I've never been called that. I take twice the general course load for someone of my age at school, I am enrolling in what many believe to be one of the most prestigious institutions in the world in the autumn (Oxford) and though I don't believe they are a good representation, I have a very high IQ. But that is all just mindless bragging and matters little with this, suffice to say, I am not a moron. Naive maybe, and compassionate, but not a moron.

I can see the difference, I was asking that because I was trying to find out whether you believe someone was guilty becuase of their intentions of because of the actual consequences. For example, the consequences of the example I gave were the same, in that it results in a death. However the intents are very different. I believe it is the intent, slmost solely, that is the important bit. Indeed, as I posted on the determinism and free will thread, I do not believe we have free will. As such, how can I say that she, or anyone else, is responsible for her actions. If she is sociopath, then she needs mental care.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's called deterrance.

At you think that works? Do you believe that harsh crimes for offenders actually reduces murders? Do you think she would not have done what she did had she known of the harsh consequences? I don't, but it is obviously, as with all this converation, a matter of opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Can't you understand that some people feel compassion?

I can't understand ANYONE that would feel compassion for this piece of ****. It'd be like someone saying they feel compassion for Jeffrey Dahmer.

I feel compassion for anyone who has something bad happen to them. Let me ask you a question. If this case were to happen to someone who you see as evil. Say if she was run over like that, and left to die, would you feel compassion for her? Would you feel compassion for Hitler if that happened? If not, what makes it less wrong because the victim is 'evil'? I feel compassion for anybody who has something horrific happen to them. She will be scarred for life from that. I can't even imagine how she must feel. Yes it was horrific, and she should be charged. I will admit that I was unaware of the whole story, as Boris has now shown me, and thus yes, she is certainly not as innocent as I first thought. However I still feel compassion for her, as I feel for everyone that goes through something like that. Yes I am naive, but I cannot help whom I feel compassion for.

I know you feel very differently. I can accept how you feel a need for judgement, for revenge and justice. I am not like that. I wish to do whatevery creates the most good. I do not think locking her up for 50 years serves a purpose. I submitting her to a mental hospital, if she is a sociopath, is a better thing to do. If she is a danger to society,then remove her from society. This is all opinions though. We disagree on them, and we will not convince each other of our opinions. I am just gald our laws are not quite so harsh here. I suspect over here she would have got a custodial manslaughter sentance, which would be more reasonable, IMHO, than 50+10 years.

Imran Siddiqui · June 28, 2003, 00:43

Berz, personally, for the reprehensibility of what she did, and the deterance for other people not to do the same thing (get a slap on the rest and maybe there is a chance you can get away with it), I'd give her Life.

PLATO · June 28, 2003, 00:50

It is always sad to see someone screw their life up like she did. But, frankly, I don't want someone who will listen to someone cry for help for three days while they are dying and do NOTHING in the same society with me. Lock her a$$ away.

Berzerker · June 28, 2003, 00:50

I don't believe in a justice that requires a greater punishment simply to deter others. And how often does something like this happen? Most everyone can see from this that had she sought help, she wouldn't have gotten nearly the sentence she ended up with...

Drogue · June 28, 2003, 00:53

Berzerker:

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Determinism? You mean, like the planets were aligned or something?

No. Please see the Fate and Radom Chance thread for details of my opinions. I believe in the kind of determinism which Stephen Hawking has talked about. The kind that states that because our choices are dependant on who we are, and that who we are is a combination of your genes and your experience, which are things over which you have no control. Therefore, although it is impossible to predict because of uncertainty principle, it is already determined. What you will choose in every situation is already decided.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Then maybe it's determinism that she spend a long time in jail.

Yes. That doesn't mean I have to agree. I don't think she is responsible for her actions, the same way I don't think those jurors or that judge was either.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
But what purpose is served by locking anyone up? I'd agree she doesn't seem like a big threat and maybe she wouldn't ever do something like this again, but that can apply to all sorts of people in jail, even many murderers...we can't read minds.

We can aply that tho the whole population. Anyone could kill someone. Is she any more likely than anyone else? Than the 'average' person? I doubt it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
Now, I do wonder if she drove home, not because she panicked, but because she knew the cops would get her for DUI and prosecutors would try to nail her with manslaughter. I imagine that even if she could have shown it wasn't her fault, she'd still get hit with all sorts of charges. Btw, her excuse, "it was the drugs" is so transparent, she had days to recover and her behavior only became worse. I hate to see someone's life ruined by such a freak accident, but it was what she did after the collision that is reprehensible. She ruined her life and took his all because she wouldn't take responsibilty...but I think the sentence was too harsh. No priors, no intent to hit him, just fear of what would happen to her...15-20 years...

That I can accept. I do agree that she was there for days, and I find that position far more reasonable than the 50+10 she was given.

monkspider · June 28, 2003, 00:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
I don't believe in a justice that requires a greater punishment simply to deter others. And how often does something like this happen? Most everyone can see from this that had she sought help, she wouldn't have gotten nearly the sentence she ended up with...

Berz and I find common ground on something, truly a day to rejoice.

Imran Siddiqui · June 28, 2003, 00:59

Quote:

I don't believe in a justice that requires a greater punishment simply to deter others.

That may be fine, but obviously more people do think that a greater punishment is needed for heinous crimes for the purposes of deterance.

Why else do more heinous crimes get heavier sentances? Do you believe because it is proper retribution, or do you believe that it is because those who commit more heinous crimes should remain in jail because they might do it again? If the latter, what is to prevent this woman from doing something else that is a reckless disregard for humanity? She has already shown she does not value human life one iota.

PLATO · June 28, 2003, 01:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
She has already shown she does not value human life one iota.

Exactly! She has shown that her character is incompatable with what society will accept. Therefore,for the greater good and protection of all, she must be removed from it. The fact that she didn't get life shows that the judge felt that she may have some redeeming qualities and could at some point in the future be able to integrate back into society.

Sava · June 28, 2003, 01:25

she needs to be at the end of a rope

PLATO · June 28, 2003, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
she needs to be at the end of a rope

Berzerker · June 28, 2003, 01:36

Imran -

Quote:

That may be fine, but obviously more people do think that a greater punishment is needed for heinous crimes for the purposes of deterance.

I don't take public polls when deciding what to think.

Quote:

Why else do more heinous crimes get heavier sentances?

Because those crimes are more heinous?

Quote:

Do you believe because it is proper retribution, or do you believe that it is because those who commit more heinous crimes should remain in jail because they might do it again?

She had no priors, but the first option. Now, I can't read minds, so I don't know which 1st time offenders are more likely to continue down their road to crime. I have to wait until they commit another crime before I'd know the answer to your second question. Therefore, I have to go on what they did and only on what they did. All 1st time offenders have a "plus" in my book over repeat offenders since the latter has continued their criminal behavior.

Quote:

If the latter, what is to prevent this woman from doing something else that is a reckless disregard for humanity? She has already shown she does not value human life one iota.

I doubt she had no concern for the guy, only that her concern about what would happen to her was a higher priority.

Drogue -

Quote:

No. Please see the Fate and Radom Chance thread for details of my opinions. I believe in the kind of determinism which Stephen Hawking has talked about. The kind that states that because our choices are dependant on who we are, and that who we are is a combination of your genes and your experience, which are things over which you have no control. Therefore, although it is impossible to predict because of uncertainty principle, it is already determined. What you will choose in every situation is already decided.

I don't want to hijack this thread so I'll look at your link.

Quote:

Yes. That doesn't mean I have to agree. I don't think she is responsible for her actions, the same way I don't think those jurors or that judge was either.

Then she shouldn't serve any time, or anyone else who commits a crime for that matter.

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 02:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I agree completely with UR. The fact she tried to hide it does not change the act itself. She did not intend to kill that person. Yes drunk driving is definatly reckless, and using MtGs definitions, i would think it deserves felony vehicular manslaughter. It was also reckless abandonment that she did not try to help him. ANd thus a second charge of voluntary manslaughter. Add to that that afterwards she was Yes she was reckless, yes she killed someone, but she did not intend to kill them. She was under the influence of substances. It is horrific how he died, but she did not intend to kill him. One life has been lost, why take another?

You're missing a couple of points - she didn't intend, prior to hitting him to kill him. At that point, had he died instantly, then you've got felony vehicular manslaughter - it would aggravate to a felony due to multiple substance intoxication and a very high overall level of impairment.

What actually happened was that she kidnapped him - by taking him to her garage, then locking him in - not that he could have ever gotten out. If he had been left by the side of the road, he could have been discovered and his life saved. Her intent was to conceal what she'd done, so she wouldn't be embarassed and inconvenienced. So she locked him in, and prevented anyone who would help him from finding him.

Furthermore, he was still alive when she was less high (getting drunk or stoned isn't a legal excuse for impairment, because it's a chosen action.) and more obviously able to understand actions and conssequences - that's why she talked to her accomplices about what to do with the body while he was still alive. She made multiple trips out to see him - did she do so to help, or out of idle curiousity? No, she went to see if he was dead yet. Several times.

She chose, and had repeated opportunity to change her mind, to imprison and trap a man she'd severely injured, intending to let him die, and knowing he would die, so as to be spared the inconvenience of a DUI arrest.

That's not abandonment, or failure to provide aid - that's a deliberate intention to make sure nobody found out about him, and what happened to him, other than her accomplices who she thought she could rely on. The facts are that she made several trips to the garage to see that he was still alive, so each time, she could tell that maybe he could be saved with help, and each time, she went back and locked the door - so even a random intruder wouldn't find out. That is callous, cold-blooded murder, and I don't give a rat's ass about her after the fact claims that she was all teary. For four months after the killing, she happily went about her business, so remorse couldn't have been tearing at her too much.

Quote:

Why should the state pay for her to be locked up when she is not a danger to others.

On the contrary, her callous disregard for another's life for the sake of her own convenience in avoiding a DUI charge indicates she is a grave danger to others. I agree about the state having to pay to lock her up. I see this as a capital murder case.

Quote:

If she intended to kill them, then she is a danger, and thus needs to be locked up, however she didn't intend too.

So what is "What are we gonna do with him when he dies?" while he's still alive? Sure as hell sounds like a rational assessment, the initiation of a plan, and intent, to me. Considering the kidnap and torture elements, I call this capital murder.

Quote:

She is no danger. She was under the influence of substances, she was hysterical afterwards, so that someone else disposed of the body.

Her "hysteria" is only according to her and her accomplices, who obviously have an interest in minimizing their actions. The fact that she successfully covered this up for four months, lying about why she didn't have/use her car for a time, and her calling people she felt were reliable to dispose of the problem don't seem to be hysterical. Besides, how could she dispose of the body herself - she couldn't get him out of the windshield, and it's not like she could drive the body off herself.

oedo · June 28, 2003, 05:07

Quote:

I don't believe in a justice that requires a greater punishment simply to deter others. And how often does something like this happen? Most everyone can see from this that had she sought help, she wouldn't have gotten nearly the sentence she ended up with...

what would she have gotten then, if

a) Biggs had survived?
b) Biggs had survived but lost his two legs?
c) Biggs had died nonetheless?

Kaak · June 28, 2003, 05:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
she needs to be at the end of a rope

that sounds like something bush would say

Kaak · June 28, 2003, 05:31

from yahoo news:

Quote:

Brandon Biggs, the son of the slain man said that his family and Mallard's were deeply scarred by the crime.

He was dressed quite nicely to have a homeless father. I'm sure he will be very scarred....

Nubclear · June 28, 2003, 05:49

Quote:

What does that have to do with anything?

Um, the children would be emotionally scarred for life?

Quote:

A petty emotion.

"I didn't want to get a DUI ticket, so I went inside and had sex with my boyfriend while he was screaming for help, and then my friends came over and we discussed how to dispose of his (soon to be) dead, rotting corps over a cup of tea (How sweet!

). Then a few days later, he died! Jolly good! So then we hide his body and the car."

This woman is a danger to society. If she is willing on letting a person DIE so she doesnt get a DUI....What will she do next?

Quote:

Her ass is grass.

Thats an interesting way of putting it

Quote:

No. Just like I didn't intend to kill the african boy who is dying because the money I pay in tax is funding the EU dumping food on hsi province, so his dad doesn't have a job.

But would you intentionally go out of your way to make sure the African boy dies?

Quote:

whoch means that they do not believe she is able to control, nor should be responsible for her actions.

Of course not. The woman was hurt that she didn't have sex with her boyfriend earlier, so when the man happend to hit her windshield she was just too busy thinking about sex to care.

So then she getes to her house, and shes thinking of the incredible orgasm shes about to have that she doesnt hear the pleas for help. So she goes and has INCREDIBLE sex with her boyfriend.
Well, shes soooo happy about her sex life that she forgets to STOP HOLDING THE UP BUTTON on the volume, and that simply drowns out the mans voice.
So the next day, after shes all normal, she goes into her garage, BUT....The movie that was on last night was soooo sad, it reminded her of her relationship with her boyfriend, and shes so distraut she dosn't notice the blood gushing everywhere and the screems for help.
So she invites her friends, she says that they should stuff the body and throw it away.....But she didn't mean the HOMELESS PERSONS BODY, she was metaphorically thinking of her own body, and she'll stuff the "Bad, fat body" out and throw it away so she can have even greater sex with her boyfriend.
Well, she goes back into her garage the next day and finds a large pile of cloths coming out of her windshield. Something smells! It must be her boyfriends old cloths.....Oh, how she remembers her boyfriend, who always leaves his cloths lying around everywhere...Times were good back then.
Well, shes a bit too distracted to notice the body thats wearing the cloths, so she stuffs them in a bag and then throws it away.

She obviously had no control

Quote:

Not at all. I think it is and should be acrime. I said they were less responsibel for their actions when inebriated, they are stil to soem extent responsible. But if someone takes a drug that means they cannot control themselves at all, they have committed the crime of taking that drug. If they kill someone or not while on that drug, they cannot control it. Therefore why are they less guilty if they don't kill someone than if they do? They have the same intent, the intent to take that drug. What they do on it is not under their control.

This actually would be a nice defense.

"I'm not responsible! I took LSD and I just blacked out. I'm not responsible for the murder of this person!!!!"

heres another good defense: Well, I have depression, so that lowers my mood....And when I get angry, I just can't control myself, and so I guess I killed him. But I wasn't in control!!!! It was my anger who was in control, not me!!!

Quote:

Arguing more about morals

OK, I've drunk, and I've had hangovers.....But I've never taken a shot of something SOOOO strong, it's intoxicating, mind numbing effects were in full swing TWO DAYS AFTER the drink.

Quote:

Oh yeah, and that wouldn't be murder either - because she didn't intend on his cranium and brain getting in the way of the speeding piece of lead she just released.

Actually, it would be the MANS fault, because his cranium and brain did get in the way....She had no control over it, so obviously he did it intentionally! Destruction of property anyone? Theft anyone?

Quote:

I take twice the general course load for someone of my age at school, I am enrolling in what many believe to be one of the most prestigious institutions in the world in the autumn (Oxford) and though I don't believe they are a good representation, I have a very high IQ

1. Yay, you like to absorb books.
2. If someone is smart enough to get into Oxford, one is smart enough to do just about anything

3. You are correct. IQ tests are inheritly flawed because no matter now many questions you ask about what subjects, you simply cannot measure a persons intelligence. Some old english guy was simply jealous of his brother.

Quote:

Do you believe that harsh crimes for offenders actually reduces murders?

Well, yeah. Come now Drouge....Do you honestly think there wouldn't be an increase in murders if, say, you only got a few weeks in jail or community service?

Quote:

Say if she was run over like that, and left to die, would you feel compassion for her?

No. I hate to use the bible, but its a very good quote: The wicked will destroy the wicked. If evil kills evil, I'm all for it.

Quote:

If not, what makes it less wrong because the victim is 'evil'?

I used to be friends with a vietnamese woman....Who was completly immobile to happiness, sadness, or most other human emotions. She couldn't feel anger, or morality. Nothing like that.

I feel like I'm talking to her again

Quote:

Yes I am naive, but I cannot help whom I feel compassion for.

In New-age, your a helper. A helper is the greatest of friends, but the weakest of prey. A helper can heal quite well, but is colourblind.

Quote:

f she is a danger to society,then remove her from society

Gladly

Quote:

Is she any more likely than anyone else? Than the 'average' person? I doubt it.

She has shown a tendency to, well, not save people if they are in danger AND to intentionally let them die so she doesnt have a minor inconvienence.

You are more likely to help even the most shunned of souls because its WITHIN you. I'm more likely to be compassionate but judge swiftly but harshly. Thats in me. Shes more likely to let someone die than become inconvinenced. Thats in her

Quote:

All 1st time offenders have a "plus" in my book over repeat offenders since the latter has continued their criminal behavior.

And all 0-time offenders have a bigger plus because, well, they didn't do anything henious.

Quote:

only that her concern about what would happen to her was a higher priority.

Someone we really need in society

Ugh. This is almost as high as the "Child Molesters are people too.".

Drogue · June 28, 2003, 12:51

Firstly, I will admit defeat. I was unaware of the exact circumstances, and yes, it does seem that in not allowing others to help him, in the kidnapping side of it, she did commit murder. I still think the sentance is too harsh, but I will not argue that she did not commit murder.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
This woman is a danger to society.

From what it seems, the kind of thing she did, the torture and kidnapping side of it, she needs to go to a secure hospital. I am no shrink, but she seems very much sociopathic.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
heres another good defense: Well, I have depression, so that lowers my mood....And when I get angry, I just can't control myself, and so I guess I killed him. But I wasn't in control!!!! It was my anger who was in control, not me!!!

If someone is truly that depressed, then they need treatment in a secure hospital.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
1. Yay, you like to absorb books.

Actually, I'm not big on reading at all. I just take the exams. Things like Business and Politics I just have an interest in, so don't find them too difficult (they aren't like a Maths A level, they require good general knowledge and that's about it its appauling they're worth the same IMHO).

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
2. If someone is smart enough to get into Oxford, one is smart enough to do just about anything

After my brothers recent achievements, I now have something to aim for

Thanks for the compliment, even if it might be a little too far. I'm still shocked how many people apply too. Very scary odds.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
3. You are correct. IQ tests are inheritly flawed because no matter now many questions you ask about what subjects, you simply cannot measure a persons intelligence. Some old english guy was simply jealous of his brother.

Probably very right. I think they are flawed, in that no test can measure intelligence, but I think they show something, if only an ability to do that kind of test (logic, numbers, memory, language and spatial). But yes, it means jack. Talking of jacks, let us get off this threadjack

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Well, yeah. Come now Drouge....Do you honestly think there wouldn't be an increase in murders if, say, you only got a few weeks in jail or community service?

No, but I don't think it would increase by much, if any, if the punishment was 20 years instead of 50.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I used to be friends with a vietnamese woman....Who was completly immobile to happiness, sadness, or most other human emotions. She couldn't feel anger, or morality. Nothing like that.

Interesting. I would love to meet someone like that. A facinating person to speak to I'm sure.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
In New-age, your a helper. A helper is the greatest of friends, but the weakest of prey. A helper can heal quite well, but is colourblind.

I'll go with that. I would rather be over trusting and compassionate than cynical. I am cynical when it coems to arguments and proof, but compassionate when it comes to people. Probably overly so at both.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
You are more likely to help even the most shunned of souls because its WITHIN you. I'm more likely to be compassionate but judge swiftly but harshly. Thats in me. Shes more likely to let someone die than become inconvinenced. Thats in her

Point taken. I don't like the idea of judging personally, but since we do not live in a Utopia, it is necessary IMHO.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Someone we really need in society

Ugh. This is almost as high as the "Child Molesters are people too.".

True, but you have to benefit that she is part of society. Is the large detriment to her worth the plus to everyone else of having her removed. If yes, then she should be removed, if no, then she shouldn't. I am more and more being inclined to switch to the yes.

With child molesters, I think there needs to be a distinction between someone who has sex with a willing 15 year old, and someone who preys on pre-teens. The second deserve to be locked up, the first I don't see a crime. Consent is the most important part, and I thinka 15 year old can give consent. It's when it gets much younger that it is like rape IMHO. What if both parties are underage, who gets tried? They both take advantage of the other one?

DinoDoc · June 28, 2003, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Um, the children would be emotionally scarred for life?

This should be a concern during sentencing because of what exactly?

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by oedo

what would she have gotten then, if

a) Biggs had survived?
b) Biggs had survived but lost his two legs?
c) Biggs had died nonetheless?

I don't know about Texas DUI law, but in California, if she had immediately tried to obtain help after the collision, most likely a)

a) Aggravated DUI - maybe 30-90 days (due to multiple substance abuse, high level of impairment and hitting the guy), a fine, suspension of license, and the whole DUI routine (substance abuse counseling, restricted license after suspension is over, etc.) and civil liability to the victim.

b) The same, but the civil liability would be less.

c) Most likely vehicular manslaughter (not felony, since she tried to get help immediately and it was a first offense). 6 to 12 months in jail, fine, probation for 3-4 years after, longer driver's license suspension, more stringent substance abuse and DUI routine.

The serious criminal elements lie in everything she did after the collision, so she was truly stupid. Even if she had originally locked him in the garage, then when she checked later, called 911 and finally done the right thing, it would have a huge impact on the charges and the degree of jury sympathy.

korn469 · June 28, 2003, 13:30

Quote:

The serious criminal elements lie in everything she did after the collision, so she was truly stupid. Even if she had originally locked him in the garage, then when she checked later, called 911 and finally done the right thing, it would have a huge impact on the charges and the degree of jury sympathy.

i agree completely

her actions upto and including driving to her house were not murder, she may have truly been freaked out, but the minute she locked him in the garage and decided to let him die it crossed the line from an accident to murder in my opinion, i mean she had two days! to do some soul searching and come to her senses and do something to save this guy's life

how very sad, the whole entire thing

Boris Godunov · June 28, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Quote:

b) Biggs had survived but lost his two legs?

b) The same, but the civil liability would be less.

Why would his losing his legs have an impact on the civil liability in a downward fashion?

Boris Godunov · June 28, 2003, 13:34

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
how very sad, the whole entire thing

As Biggs' son said, "there are no winners."

Biggs is dead, his family has lost him, this woman, who otherwise hasn't done much else, will spend several decades in prison, her family will be affected, her two accomplices will each spend several years in prison, their families will be affected... it's sad on pretty much every level.

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 14:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Why would his losing his legs have an impact on the civil liability in a downward fashion?

My train of thought derailed.

What I was thinking and what I was typing were in the opposite direction - liability would be more, of course. I was thinking from most severe situation down, when the questions were in the opposite order.

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 14:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

As Biggs' son said, "there are no winners."

Biggs is dead, his family has lost him, this woman, who otherwise hasn't done much else, will spend several decades in prison, her family will be affected, her two accomplices will each spend several years in prison, their families will be affected... it's sad on pretty much every level.

All serious crime fits this pattern - people would be a hell of a lot better off if we didn't have to fry the Gacy's and Bundy's of the world, and they didn't commit their crimes.

Nobody ever wins, the most you can do is try to make sure less people lose.

Boris Godunov · June 28, 2003, 14:35

I dunno...I can at least get that visceral sense of justice that Gacy was at last brought to justice.

It's not the same with this woman. While I agree with the sentence, I don't get that same feeling of "Yeah!!! We got da *****!"

MichaeltheGreat · June 28, 2003, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I dunno...I can at least get that visceral sense of justice that Gacy was at last brought to justice.

It's not the same with this woman. While I agree with the sentence, I don't get that same feeling of "Yeah!!! We got da *****!"

The thing with Gacy and his ilk, is that the sort of visceral "String 'im up" revulsion Gacy causes is because of the high damage he inflicted. Had Gacy killed once, or never, then he wouldn't generate the revulsion and the visceral desire to see justice inflicted.

Most murderers, I don't find exceptionally repugnant, so I don't get any particular satisfaction out of whatever happens to them. The punishment is earned by the crime, but they both suck.

There's those occasional ones, like the San Diego couple who killed their four year old neice (after 18 months of abuse and torture, including suspending her by handcuffs from a hanger in closed closet overnight as punishment for crying, and holding her hand over a lit stove burner until she had second degree burns as punishment for getting too near the stove), by holding her down and scalding her to death in a bathtub, while their own kids were locked in their bedroom across the hall. They took almost an hour to kill her, constantly heating up water and pouring it on her, while she whimpered and cried.

They're the first ever husband and wife duo on California's death row, but I think injection is far too kind a fate. With someone like that, I wouldn't have any particular problem with taking them out in the desert and dispatching them to hell Chiricauhua Apache style.

Drogue · June 28, 2003, 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
With someone like that, I wouldn't have any particular problem with taking them out in the desert and dispatching them to hell Chiricauhua Apache style.

What does that ential? Tying them down and letting them slowly die of dehydration, or something far worse?