User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 49

  1. #31
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saturned View Post
    Actually it should. This isn't one of those cases where you see someone who is a repeat offender for a crime, and oh this time something bad happened. This was a mother trying to get her kids home. I understand the need for justice, but I also see a great need for mercy as well.
    If those two factors should be taken into account:

    Would it be ok to give someone with no other kids a harsher punishment than hers?
    Would it be ok to give someone a harsher punishment if they felt less bad about losing their kid?

    I think you are confusing what I actually wrote with what you think I was trying to imply.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  2. #32
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, I think people just comment on stuff because they're mostly bored or feel insignificant, and events like this are touchpoints/catalysts for them to express their own values and feel like they are saying something of universal worth.

    ... oh darn... did that actually just come out of my mouth?

    In any case, to comment with actual authority, I think we'd actually have to know all the details, not just the basic ones.
    Fair point. It just scares me to see people get all involved with issues because of their emotional reaction and not looking at the bigger picture effect of what they're actually saying. That's what causes knee-jerk reaction laws.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  3. #33
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    Fair point. It just scares me to see people get all involved with issues because of their emotional reaction and not looking at the bigger picture effect of what they're actually saying. That's what causes knee-jerk reaction laws.
    Well, that's assuming that the "emotional" reactions you are getting here would persist throughout a long drawn-out legislative process rather than simply being the emotional reactions that most people allow themselves when first confronting a situation when they're not required to have a more rigorous approach.

    (Kind of like assuming that juries always respond emotionally in their verdicts, made of a long deliberation process. The Casey Anthony case certainly is a denial of that, they wanted to punish her emotionally but felt like rationally there wasn't enough evidence.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #34
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    That's true, but I'm not so much talking about the people on this forum so much as the people all over the country. Although, it's still a valid point.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  5. #35
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    As I've said before, laws are not an end unto themselves, but a means to achieving the ideal society. I do not believe the spirit of this law is to cause additional suffering to a mother who did something which a majority of the population would have done if in the same situation; rather, I feel its existence is meant to prevent the streets from being filled with people, and to restrict walking to designated lanes (crosswalks). Also, I have a hard time respecting laws which are not regularly enforced. Humans are practical creatures, and laws become more difficult to follow the less likely it is that punishment will be exacted for the breaking of said laws, primarily because many laws are simply impractical (trading much for a small decrease in the likelihood of injury). In the end, sometimes individuals die as a result of the actions of many different people, and punishing the actors will do nothing to change the likelihood of reoccurrence; should suffering beget more suffering simply for the sake of superficial justice?
    Honestly, I think that if there is no feasible way to enforce a law, the law is pointless and in some cases counterproductive in the broader picture. However, J Walking, just like all other crimes, is enforceable on a case-by-case basis. Then again, if everyone J Walked, it would be impossible to monitor or punish.

    I've personally seen J Walking "punished" 3 times in my life, and all 3 cases simply involved an officer yelling at some kid or homeless person to scoot off the road.

    But let's forget the justice system for a sec. If the law was put in place to save lives, and if Nelson decided to instead use the cross walk, only to have her son hit by a drunk driver, then how is the law really relevant? I'm sure that's happened before; hell, from a practical standpoint, staying within the crosswalk may compromise your life in the wake of a drunkie because your movement is restricted.

    Whatever. She chose to J walk with her kids. Then again, if she chose to stay out any later with them while crosswalking, her choice would also reflect poor judgement, though legal judgement.

    Shit sucks.

  6. #36
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post

    Does jaywalking really count? By crossing to the median, was she "disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that her act will cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person?" And was it "a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation?"
    I don't think she disregarded it. She just chose the lesser of two evils on the spot.

  7. #37
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    If those two factors should be taken into account:

    Would it be ok to give someone with no other kids a harsher punishment than hers?
    Would it be ok to give someone a harsher punishment if they felt less bad about losing their kid?

    I think you are confusing what I actually wrote with what you think I was trying to imply.
    1- No. It still stands that she can not be punished more than she will be.
    2- No. You can't quantify feeling bad about something on a scale.

    I am just saying that mercy should be factored into judgements, and they often are.

  8. #38
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    I can't blame the courts for making an example of her.


  9. #39
    Senior Member swordpath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    MBTI
    ISTx
    Posts
    10,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MacGuffin View Post
    Yes there does, that's how the justice system works.
    How does the man's crimes/penalty have any bearing on the woman's and vice versa (aside from there being no investigated crime if there were not two parties involved)? It doesn't. What I meant was that you can't say "drunk driving will always be the more severe crime" like that should lessen or marginalize the woman's responsibility in the situation. Woman breaking the law in this instance = dead child. That's all there is to it.

  10. #40
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    xkcd
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Socionics
    INT_
    Posts
    10,733

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ignite View Post
    How does the man's crimes/penalty have any bearing on the woman's and vice versa (aside from there being no investigated crime if there were not two parties involved)? It doesn't. What I meant was that you can't say "drunk driving will always be the more severe crime" like that should lessen or marginalize the woman's responsibility in the situation. Woman breaking the law in this instance = dead child. That's all there is to it.
    Of course it does. If I shoot your child in front of you and you pull out a gun and shoot me (not in self-defense), you think you're going to get the same sentence as me?

Similar Threads

  1. Woman could face up to 5 years in prison for encouraging fight
    By Savage Idealist in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-24-2013, 08:11 AM
  2. Mexico could face a collapse
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 03-21-2009, 01:11 AM
  3. Time for some lighthearted banter and fun
    By Amargith in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 11-15-2008, 05:08 PM
  4. Time for Introductions?
    By ENTJ Extraordinaire in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-01-2008, 03:38 AM
  5. Time for a new colour...
    By Prototype in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 11:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO