Anonymous wrote:I support these levels of sentences. They did not mean to kill anyone. There is not a need to lock them up for decades like murderers.

Isn't alcohol an extenuating factor to the contrary? I get a driver may be confused and accidentally turn the wrong way onto a one way. But once a driver starts drinking, seems like all bets are off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s right and fair. Sentences in the US are far too long. For someone lacking the intent to take a life, we should have short sentences. We should also have more 10-20 year sentences for intentional murders.

What about negligence? There's no intent. For instance, the building owner that doesn't keep his building up to code and residents die in a fire. There was no intent to harm the residents even though a working fire alarm system could reasonably be expected to save lives.

Sure. That sounds like criminal negligence. If you’re a slum lord with no regard for human life, I think a decade in prison isn’t unreasonable.

Where was the intent?

[headdesk]

Negligence is, definitionally, the absence of intent.

There are so many people talking out of there asses here.

OK, so negligence lacks intent. Therefore, any crimes which involve negligence lack intent and should be punished accordingly since DCUM has decided that only intent matters. Failure to maintain your rental property is just a fine. If someone dies in a fire related to that lack of maintenance, it's just a fine. I can't see how this would be abused.

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think the following crimes should all require long sentences, to prevent re-offending and creating more victims, because I don’t think these perpetrators can be rehabilitated:

- Rape
- Child molestation
- All murders including DUIs and reckless driving murders

So all mommies driving their three kiddos to soccer practice, if they hit and kill someone while texting, will also go to prison for 10-20 years?

Some of yall are acting like a drunk driver who kills someone is not intending to kill them? They are using a deadly weapon (a car) in a very dangerous manner so while they most likely didn't start driving thinking "I want to kill someone right now", they are absolutely intentionally doing that. Their judgment is impaired by alcohol, yes, but they are still making that choice. If someone is drunk and starts a fire in a crowded building or gets drunk and shoots a gun into a crowd or gets drunk and does any other homicidal action, they are acting with intent to kill because any of those actions are actions you only do if you accept the risk that it will likely severely injure someone. Whether you're drunk or not. I don't think keeping people in prison for lengthy terms is the answer but if they kill someone yes they do need to be imprisoned for awhile. They need to be punished for their crime and then rehab can be focused on from there. In addition to prison time, revoke their license permanently, require the interlock and breathalyzers on all vehicles they may have access to, force them into rehab, have officers drop in on them at random for tox screens, put a billboard up with their face on it and info about their drunk driving record. I'm only 1/2 joking about those last 2 things. I know nothing is fool proof, but it seems that would work better to stop them re-offending than other measures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.

DUIs aren’t accidental death. They are murders.

The law disagrees with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s right and fair. Sentences in the US are far too long. For someone lacking the intent to take a life, we should have short sentences. We should also have more 10-20 year sentences for intentional murders.

What about negligence? There's no intent. For instance, the building owner that doesn't keep his building up to code and residents die in a fire. There was no intent to harm the residents even though a working fire alarm system could reasonably be expected to save lives.

Sure. That sounds like criminal negligence. If you’re a slum lord with no regard for human life, I think a decade in prison isn’t unreasonable.

Where was the intent?

[headdesk]

Negligence is, definitionally, the absence of intent.

There are so many people talking out of there asses here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because what’s the point in putting someone in jail for more years. 3.5 years is prison. Not jail. Huge difference. Why ruin two families lives?

So if a drunk driver mows down a car with your spouse and kids inside, and kills your entire family leaving you a widower with no children, you will feel okay with the driver spending 3.5 years in prison and then going on with their life? While you suffer the rest of yours?

NP, and of course not. But that's why we don't allow grieving survivors to determine the punishment for homicides. Incarcerating someone for decades has to be a logical, reasoned decision that takes into account many factors. The pain of a victim's loved ones is only one of them, and frankly not the most important one.

Personally I think the following crimes should all require long sentences, to prevent re-offending and creating more victims, because I don’t think these perpetrators can be rehabilitated:

- Rape
- Child molestation
- All murders including DUIs and reckless driving murders

Anonymous wrote:I support these levels of sentences. They did not mean to kill anyone. There is not a need to lock them up for decades like murderers.

But they did kill someone which makes them a murderer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.

Sure! you have lots of time on your hands. But I do not need you to “educate” me. I know the difference. My response was to the statement that “long prison sentences do not work, otherwise we would have empty prisons”. Which is an illogical and stupid comment written by a typical privileged American. Long sentences absolutely work and keep murderers away from us, law abiding citizens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support these levels of sentences. They did not mean to kill anyone. There is not a need to lock them up for decades like murderers.

You mean the technical definition of murderer? Because they absolutely are a murderer and deserve to rot jail. The. AST majority of people are perfectly capable of drinking and not driving.

More often than not, it doesn't fit the definition of murder. Manslaughter, not murder. There is a difference. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.

DUIs aren’t accidental death. They are murders.

I did not think dui’s are as serious as crimes with intent to harm, because obviously no one is seeking a car accident. I do agree that driving should be a privilege and the second dui should require a ten year driving ban or breathalyzer ignition activation.

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s right and fair. Sentences in the US are far too long. For someone lacking the intent to take a life, we should have short sentences. We should also have more 10-20 year sentences for intentional murders.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I think our sentences are WAY too long in the US. They used to be 2 years for most crimes and now we have people locked away for 25+ years.

Well the victim’s “sentence” was losing her entire life. Her family will live with this pain way beyond 3.5 years. It’s absurd how we treat people who choose to drink and drive with such kid gloves. Why should they get to go on and live out the rest of their lives as if nothing happened?

Long imprisonments won't bring anyone back.

Neither will a short imprisonment if you don’t want to go to jail don’t break the law. Plus, long sentences may act as deterrent for the next loser who makes a choice to drink and drive.

Long sentences clearly don’t deter crime, otherwise we’d have empty jails.

It doesn’t deter ALL crime, but it absolutely deters some, if not the most.

That's not a position any data supports, including high quality data from countries with much shorter sentences.

I am an immigrant from the country where murderers and pedophiles can get 10, 15 years. Do you really believe that once they are free, they are law abiding citizens? Many kill again including child rapists. Just in my home city I know many cases where people committed heinous crimes once they got free from prison. One of the reasons I immigrated to USA is because I got tired of living in a corrupted, high crime, poor country. And now I am being lectured by a privileged American telling me that murderers would not commit another crime after they murdered someone because “ data doesn’t support it”? This is too funny.

If you can’t differentiate between murder and accidental death, I’ve got no time to educate you.