Aesir
Smash Master
In New York both would be charged with attempted murder.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Debate Hall Social Thread
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
Sieguest
Smash Master
Seriously? Is there any reason why or is New York that lenient?
Aesir
Smash Master
Lenient?
In NY if you're caught drinking and driving you get slammed with attempted murder. No other state does that.
In NY if you're caught drinking and driving you get slammed with attempted murder. No other state does that.
That relates to this example at posted at the bottom of the last page-
"Two people get drunk at a party and drive home. X hits a tree, and Y hits a child. B naturally gets a far more severe punishment. Is that fair? their negligence was the same, but Y was a bit more unlucky."
The NY system can be defended on the grounds that both people were equally neglecting of their responsibilities.
"Two people get drunk at a party and drive home. X hits a tree, and Y hits a child. B naturally gets a far more severe punishment. Is that fair? their negligence was the same, but Y was a bit more unlucky."
The NY system can be defended on the grounds that both people were equally neglecting of their responsibilities.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
I'm not necessarily saying it should be the same punishment, but 7 years is a little ridiculous for intentionally shooting someone in the face, don't you think?
That reasoning makes sense Dre, but if so, driving drunk should carry a severe penalty. It should not be combined or considered equal to attempted murder. That is just ridiculous.
You can extend that analogy you quoted. Six people get drunk and drive home. Person A gets home safely, person B hits a tree, person C drives through a store window, person D drives far above the speed limit, person E does not stop at a stop sign, person F does not give the right of way to another car at an intersection.
Does that mean that every drunk driver should be charged with destruction of property, speeding, failure to stop at a stop sign, and failure to grant the right of way? Of course not, that's just stupid. Each driver was equally negligent for driving drunk, absolutely. The penalty for driving drunk, then, should be severe, regardless of what else happened while they were behind the wheel. From a logical, common sense point of view, tacking on attempted murder to a drunk driving charge is a completely nonsensical idea, at best.
By the way Dre, I don't know if you support the NY system or if you were just making a note of the fact that it could be defended based on that example. I'm simply relating my opinion of it.
You can extend that analogy you quoted. Six people get drunk and drive home. Person A gets home safely, person B hits a tree, person C drives through a store window, person D drives far above the speed limit, person E does not stop at a stop sign, person F does not give the right of way to another car at an intersection.
Does that mean that every drunk driver should be charged with destruction of property, speeding, failure to stop at a stop sign, and failure to grant the right of way? Of course not, that's just stupid. Each driver was equally negligent for driving drunk, absolutely. The penalty for driving drunk, then, should be severe, regardless of what else happened while they were behind the wheel. From a logical, common sense point of view, tacking on attempted murder to a drunk driving charge is a completely nonsensical idea, at best.
By the way Dre, I don't know if you support the NY system or if you were just making a note of the fact that it could be defended based on that example. I'm simply relating my opinion of it.
Aesir
Smash Master
Actually I'm wrong it isn't NY, I think it might be Ohio actually. In any case I can't remember the exact state, but the argument still stands in some states that's the punishment. I think attempted murder is a bit harsh but I also understand the argument. By drinking and driving you're knowingly putting others at an unreasonable risk of dying from your negligence. While Negligence doesn't constitute as attempted murder, by getting behind the wheel knowing your drunk creates a Grey area in the law.
You can argue that a person who's drunk is not in control of their actions and thus it should be considered negligence rather than attempted murder.
However the flip side to that argument is; You chose to drink and thus you should know the consequences of getting behind the wheel while intoxicated, which you're knowingly putting other people at risk because of your own irresponsibility. However the main problem this argument has is, the person has no malice intent or instinct to kill anyone (or at least we assume) So applying attempted murder charges is a tad excessive. I would say if we wanted harsh punishments for driving drunk than it would have to be something between Attempted Manslaughter and Attempted Murder.
Then again I think the law is fine as is, getting caught while drinking and driving these days is no walk in the park.
You can argue that a person who's drunk is not in control of their actions and thus it should be considered negligence rather than attempted murder.
However the flip side to that argument is; You chose to drink and thus you should know the consequences of getting behind the wheel while intoxicated, which you're knowingly putting other people at risk because of your own irresponsibility. However the main problem this argument has is, the person has no malice intent or instinct to kill anyone (or at least we assume) So applying attempted murder charges is a tad excessive. I would say if we wanted harsh punishments for driving drunk than it would have to be something between Attempted Manslaughter and Attempted Murder.
Then again I think the law is fine as is, getting caught while drinking and driving these days is no walk in the park.
But the drink driving example is twofold.
Yes you're saying that it isn't attempted murder, but do you believe that someone who hits a tree should get the exact same punishment?
Also, I think there's another question about how much responsibility being drunk removes. We all acknowledge that the person decided to get drunk knowing the consequences. However, he didn't say 'I'm going to get drunk and then drive'. The decision to drive is made once in a comprimised state.
I know that seems like a silly point, but do you guys think that factor should have any weight?
Yes you're saying that it isn't attempted murder, but do you believe that someone who hits a tree should get the exact same punishment?
Also, I think there's another question about how much responsibility being drunk removes. We all acknowledge that the person decided to get drunk knowing the consequences. However, he didn't say 'I'm going to get drunk and then drive'. The decision to drive is made once in a comprimised state.
I know that seems like a silly point, but do you guys think that factor should have any weight?
Aesir
Smash Master
No their actions didn't cause death only destruction of public property. (Which often times comes with a heafty fine, furthermore he'll be arrested anyway because he's drunk. In Many states if your caught drinking and driving your license is revoked which is accompanied by another hefty fine as well as jail time.)
What this breaks down to;
Just for drinking and driving you face;
License revoking
hefty fines
and possible jail time.
Added on to whatever you did while drunk.
Your compromised state really holds little relevance.
It's common sense that if you're going to get drunk to either A. have a friend hide your car keys, or B. find a designated driver prior to getting drunk so that you can safely get home. Drinking is not a random act, people chose to get drunk thus the responsibility should be put on them.
But if X and Y are just as negligible in driving drunk, and X happens to be more unlucky on the night and hits a child instead of a tree, has he really been that much more worse than Y to get a much harsher punishment?
Had X been in Y's position, he would have only hit the tree, and had Y been in X's position, he would have hit the child. So basically, it could have basically been their routes home which decided the accidents, yet X will get a far harsher sentence.
Your compromised state really holds little relevance.
Right, in a sober state you may have decided to drink and get a cab home. But once drunk and it was time to find a way home, in your comprimised state you decided to drive. The decision to drive was made in a comprimised state.
I don't necessarily believe that this warrants leniecy, but this is a debate hall and I find it to be an interesting issue hypothetically.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
We actually had a thread on this about a year ago, called the Moral Luck thread, which basically asks whether someone's luck or bad luck can actually make something morally better/worse. Dre, if you like this topic, you might find it interesting to take a look at it: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=236137. Just a suggestion. 
---------------------------------------------------------------
However, the legal system is not based off of morality. It's based off of what actually happens, not the level of negligence of the offender. So yes, luck does factor in to it. Let's look at an example.
Scenario one: An assassin has one bullet in his rifle. He finds his target, shoots, and kills her. He is caught by the police and receives life in prison.
Scenario two: An assassin has one bullet in his rifle. He finds his target and pulls the trigger, but his gun jams. He is caught by the police but is only caught for some gun charges, and he gets 2 years in prison. (Sorry if the penalty would be slightly different, but you get the point.)
Though both assassins had the same intent, the legal system does not take that into account. One got life in prison, but the other was lucky/unlucky and his gun jammed, causing him to not be able to kill his target, and receives a minor sentence.
---------------------------------------------------------------
However, the legal system is not based off of morality. It's based off of what actually happens, not the level of negligence of the offender. So yes, luck does factor in to it. Let's look at an example.
Scenario one: An assassin has one bullet in his rifle. He finds his target, shoots, and kills her. He is caught by the police and receives life in prison.
Scenario two: An assassin has one bullet in his rifle. He finds his target and pulls the trigger, but his gun jams. He is caught by the police but is only caught for some gun charges, and he gets 2 years in prison. (Sorry if the penalty would be slightly different, but you get the point.)
Though both assassins had the same intent, the legal system does not take that into account. One got life in prison, but the other was lucky/unlucky and his gun jammed, causing him to not be able to kill his target, and receives a minor sentence.
Yeah I understand that, but I'm questioning whether that's actually fair or not. It wouldn't be a point of debate if we were just discussing the lagelaity, because once someone tells everyone else what the law is it'd be over lol.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Well, as we concluded in the moral luck thread, the two drunk drivers are morally equal, so I suppose it's not "fair" that they get such different punishments. But that's the way it works. I don't think both drunk drivers should receive attempted murder. The judicial system has no idea of what the person's intent was. If we make drunk driving attempted murder, wouldn't speeding, running a stop sign, and running a red light also be attempted murder? Would texting while driving be attempted murder? Would a driver who lets his buddy ride without a seatbelt be charged with attempted murder? It's ridiculous if you ask me.
Little late to the party but just to offer some insight into state laws on the matter, here in Mississippi a first offense DUI is no less than 200.00 fine or up to 48 hours in county jail, or both. Second offense is 600-1500 dollar fine and 5 days -1 year in county jail and now you can also lose your car and/or license and/or have the interlock ignition control device installed. You are also subject to a mental health screening. Third+ offense is a felony, in addition to losing your car and license you get 2-5 thousand dollar fine, and 1-5 years in county jail unless the DUI was in concert with a victim of serious injury or death in which case the jail time is served in state penitentiary. You also receive a mandatory mental health evaluation and screening. Also no prosecutor will offer suspended sentence as plea bargain, and no minimum sentences will be allowed to be reduced by the court. In any and all cases involving death, felony vehicular manslaughter charges will apply. In any cases involving serious injury or death criminal negligence charges will apply.
Basically what this means is that drinking and driving doesn't automatically mean you intend to kill anyone, but if you DO kill someone, you are guilty of manslaughter. It's not unlike grabbing up a chain saw and putting on a leather mask and running around like Jason or something from RE4. Yes it's negligent (and really really dumb) but all in good fun. If its not "on" you may think it's not going to hurt anyone, and then you trip and fall and slice someone in half or something (I dunno, not to be gruesome, just an example, lol). The difficulty is that SO many people drive drunk that legislators want to make the penalties harsher by changing the very nature of what it is to drive drunk from being a negligent action to be a murderous one.
Basically what this means is that drinking and driving doesn't automatically mean you intend to kill anyone, but if you DO kill someone, you are guilty of manslaughter. It's not unlike grabbing up a chain saw and putting on a leather mask and running around like Jason or something from RE4. Yes it's negligent (and really really dumb) but all in good fun. If its not "on" you may think it's not going to hurt anyone, and then you trip and fall and slice someone in half or something (I dunno, not to be gruesome, just an example, lol). The difficulty is that SO many people drive drunk that legislators want to make the penalties harsher by changing the very nature of what it is to drive drunk from being a negligent action to be a murderous one.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
But what I take issue with is what Aesir mentioned earlier: in New York (or Ohio?) you get attempted murder just for driving drunk, even if you don't hit anything.
woah woah, what? ... That seems inaccurate, to say the least. I can understand if a prosecutor wants to try slapping attempted murder charges on someone who happened to be DUI, but there's no way DUI by itself automatically comes with an attempted murder charge -in any state- (at least not that I could find, and I searched just now for title and code on the matter, DUI is reckless endangerment until you hit someone or something then it goes from there, what changes from state to state is the fine amount, jail time, etc.)
I think there must be some misunderstanding going on, perhaps what Aesir was remembering was a specific case in NY (or Ohio) where attempted murder charges were ultimately filed, but I can find no evidence that it's automatic.
Now my curiosity is piqued, why would both connie and her husband have been charged with attempted murder? From the story related it seems as if she was a victim, she didn't try killing him, and it wasn't an obvious suicide pact? Perhaps I missed something there...
I think there must be some misunderstanding going on, perhaps what Aesir was remembering was a specific case in NY (or Ohio) where attempted murder charges were ultimately filed, but I can find no evidence that it's automatic.
Now my curiosity is piqued, why would both connie and her husband have been charged with attempted murder? From the story related it seems as if she was a victim, she didn't try killing him, and it wasn't an obvious suicide pact? Perhaps I missed something there...
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
They weren't both charged. Only Thomas was, but he only got 7 years in jail and will be out in 2012. As for whether such a law exists, you'd have to ask Aesir. I'm just saying if that law does exist, it shouldn't.
-------------------------------------------------
By the way guys, I think mariobrouser is about ready for the DH. Thoughts?
-------------------------------------------------
By the way guys, I think mariobrouser is about ready for the DH. Thoughts?
Aesir
Smash Master
I mean personally I think it's an interesting thing to look into. Should it be considered attempted murder? I dunno, I personally would think not however there is an argument for it.
Right, sorry I was referring to:
Like, I'm just curious why NY law would even do this... seems strange.
And, yes, I do think that he is ready for the DH. I reviewed his tobacco topic and found that he was fairly dynamic in his approach, and though ultimately he changed his position, its not because his original position was too weak and he couldn't defend it, more that the evidence is just so overwhelming in favor against. His contributions to other topics are well met and he'd be a good addition to the DH. Few more endorsements and we'll call it a done deal (though technically we can't add anyone atm, CK's working on it tho...)
Ah, appreciate the clarification.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Well EE can add him. Yeah, even though we're not removing the PG, I'm still in favor of it being less restrictive. I think it suffocates the DH when we only let in roughly a person per month. While it shouldn't be a free ride in, it also shouldn't be as hard as it has been in the past.
It's been too hard in the past mostly because of the vacuum in a moderating team. But the Super Debater Friends will be awesome. Someone should make a banner.
Also, sorry, who are you pushing for there, Suc? Mariobrouser?
That's eerie because I was just coming into this thread to remind everyone that Mariobrouser is under evaluation. I guess Suc has already gained his psychic powers from the decoder ring.
EDIT: That's two yays. More opinions on mario, boys!
Also, sorry, who are you pushing for there, Suc? Mariobrouser?
That's eerie because I was just coming into this thread to remind everyone that Mariobrouser is under evaluation. I guess Suc has already gained his psychic powers from the decoder ring.
EDIT: That's two yays. More opinions on mario, boys!
Mariobrouser seems like a fine chap to me.
¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯
Smash Legend
I say we let in Mariobrouser, I don't see a reason not to.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
So three mods and two debaters support mariobrouser. As long as nobody says they have anything in particular against him, he seems to be a solid choice.
I agree. If somebody has an issue with Mariobrouser, speak up. Otherwise I'm gonna leave this open for a few more hours of discussion, then let him in.
Alright, the time to complain has passed. I'm about to go let Mariobrouser in. Huzzah!
Also, I'd like to bring up CStick. CStick was one of my favorite PGers to watch back in the day, but I think his activity petered out because of the administrative vacuum we had until now. I think he'd be a fine addition to the Hall. Opinions?
Also, I'd like to bring up CStick. CStick was one of my favorite PGers to watch back in the day, but I think his activity petered out because of the administrative vacuum we had until now. I think he'd be a fine addition to the Hall. Opinions?
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
I'd like to see him be active again before we make any decisions.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
I think we should just let him...
I think at this point we should let in anyone we can even come up with an excuse to get in... plus, I believe he showed enough potential to be in the DH.
-blazed
I think at this point we should let in anyone we can even come up with an excuse to get in... plus, I believe he showed enough potential to be in the DH.
-blazed
Thanks for letting me in guys. I'm going to continue posting and trying to improve on my thinking and defending.
As for Cstick, I wouldn't know much since I didn't see him, but if you guys think he showed enough potential when he was active, he should still be worthy, shouldn't he? If he still gets on, you should let him in, and see if he's active or not. If he is, keep him. If not, remove him.
As for Cstick, I wouldn't know much since I didn't see him, but if you guys think he showed enough potential when he was active, he should still be worthy, shouldn't he? If he still gets on, you should let him in, and see if he's active or not. If he is, keep him. If not, remove him.
¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯
Smash Legend
Let's just let in Cstick. He used to be active and he showed potential, there's no reason not to. Maybe he'll be more active if we let him into the DH.
KrazyGlue
Smash Champion
Eh, I guess so. I'd still like some indication that he's actually interested in being a debater. Maybe just ask him to post once or twice, and if he doesn't say something stupid we'll let him in.
thegreatkazoo
Smash Master
Gonna have to say no to C-Stick.
People should @ least be active on the PG to get in, just not let in by promise.
People should @ least be active on the PG to get in, just not let in by promise.
I appreciate the enthusiasm but I think being that the decision was not to close the PG, we should continue admitting posters in a proper fashion ergo selecting -current- PG posters, and making solid evaluations.
As such...
Wow, we actually agree
I'll endorse him if he indeed comes back to the PG.Another I'd endorse is Omicron, who originally felt snubbed by the DH's rigidity. But in anyone's case (if you can think of any others, let me know, perhaps I can PM them and see if they're still interested) they should still go through the PG first.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Fair enough, sounds good to me.I appreciate the enthusiasm but I think being that the decision was not to close the PG, we should continue admitting posters in a proper fashion ergo selecting -current- PG posters, and making solid evaluations.
As such...
Wow, we actually agree
Another I'd endorse is Omicron, who originally felt snubbed by the DH's rigidity. But in anyone's case (if you can think of any others, let me know, perhaps I can PM them and see if they're still interested) they should still go through the PG first.
-blazed
How about you appreciate my balls you stupid ****.
Aesir
Smash Master
Someone needs a time out.
We have 4 PG members to be considering.
Werekill
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici
νοχ τωιz
Greenstreet
Werekill is perhaps ready now, he's got a lot of good participation. The other three are fairly new to the PG and I'm sure we'd like to see more posts before letting them in. Thoughts on Werekill?
I've sent PMs out to some older PG members that were definitely active enough and decent posters, mainly just wanna see if they're still interested in DH membership and if so I'll ask that they post again so we can make it official.
Werekill
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici
νοχ τωιz
Greenstreet
Werekill is perhaps ready now, he's got a lot of good participation. The other three are fairly new to the PG and I'm sure we'd like to see more posts before letting them in. Thoughts on Werekill?
I've sent PMs out to some older PG members that were definitely active enough and decent posters, mainly just wanna see if they're still interested in DH membership and if so I'll ask that they post again so we can make it official.
How about you consider my **** up your ***.
¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯
Smash Legend
RDK, stop being butthurt that you didn't get chosen to be a mod. If you have nothing to add, then you can leave.