514
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
514 points (95.9% liked)
News
23376 readers
2159 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As hard as it is to say something like that... we need more people like this.
It's a nice sentiment, but..
This was premeditated. She needs to be held accountable and have consequences for what she willfully and knowingly did.
She literally killed people. I'm not sure this can be a case of "forgive and let her off lightly."
I don’t think he's saying she shouldn't be accountable and face consequences. He's said he didn't want her to spend life in jail. That's going to be pretty radical for a lot of folks.
Some people are going to think that life in prison or the death penalty should be the minimum consequence. Others are going to think that even a monster like this can repent, change and (unlike her victims) be allowed to live free eventually.
Edit. Yikes. Important typo. “Don’t”
That's fair, and I get it. To me, that's absolutely radical, especially if it was my child who was harmed.
I personally have just learned from experience that people who get off easy are likely to continue on the path of destructive behavior.
I'm not necessarily calling for her death or anything.. but the punishment needs to fit the crime. Two lives are permanently gone from this world because of the careless and stupid choices she made.
I would agree, but I’d argue that that’s because our current system doesn’t actually rehabilitate people, and solely exists to punish people. Which solves practically nothing.
That's fair. Still, though, something is needed.
For me, it's not about whether or not she can change and repent. I'm all for prison reforms that make prison safe and offer inmates opportunities for growth and self-improvement while they serve their sentences, but I think punishments need to fit crimes and this girl intentionally killed two other people. I think a sentence of 15 years to life is actually a bit lenient (I'm used to 25 years to life being the standard for premeditated murder). I don't think she should mandatorily have to spend her entire life in prison, but I also don't think she should get to enjoy even fraction of the life she robbed those two boys of. Ideally, with good behavior, I'd like to see her get out at 45-50 years of age. She would still have a few decades left, but the prime of her life would be gone—no career, no kids. That seems fair to me.
And yet on the same turn, if the father was calling for the death penalty or even a lengthy prison sentence, you all would be admonishing the fact that he even got a say and stating this is why justice systems shouldn't be about satisfying the victim at all.
The hypocrisy is really blatant and self-serving. Should people be punished for their crimes or not? If yes, then you need to support predetermined sentences for crimes that apply equally across all cases, including this one. If no, then you don't really believe in justice or government, but something much more insidious.
Ya know, I've never seen anyone say that about the victim in instances like the one you describe.
I have, on Reddit, many a time. They often do it to oppose the death penalty or opposing punishing anyone for crimes. It's cheap enabling and apologia for all kinds of horrific shit wrapped in a neat little package.
There's a middle ground between life in prison and just a slap on the wrist
I agree. 15 years is hardly "life" in prison, though. I think it's more than fair.
People change. They get better. The guy who shot Reagan got better, and they let him out. Now he writes love songs and posts them on YouTube, and sells his paintings on eBay.
The guy who shot Reagan was already better. /S
Better if he'd hit the goddamn range once or twice...
15 years seems like a perfectly adequate amount of time for that.
I agree that there should be time served, and a significant amount of it. I'm okay with 15 years. This person needs to be set aside from society while we determine if we can help them and, if we can, to do it.
I'd like to know how we arrived at 15 years, though. Would 10 not be enough? If the court had suggested 20 I don't think either of us would have said "But surely it can be done in 15." It feels right but it looks kinda arbitrary and that's interesting to me.
Does "15 years to life" mean anything? Or is it just "15 years"?
Means there's a chance they get out on parole at 15 years. So they may end up with a life sentence if not approved, but regardless, she is serving 15 years.
On one hand, yes.
On the other hand, 17+15 is 32. Think of all of the things you do to get your life started between 17 and 32 and where you'd be if you'd waited to do the stuff you did at 17 until you were 32. That's a whole lot of life and life experience there.
Such a stupid senseless waste all around.
It's unfortunate, this whole thing is a terrible waste of life. I hope she can rehabilitate over the 15 years and get out on good behavior.
Leniency is a double edged sword. On the one hand, why wouldn't you want to show mercy when possible? But on the other, if you're too lenient, the person won't properly learn the consequences of their actions. As someone who tends to be too lenient, I've learned that the hard way.
Being 17, I'd attribute some of the blame to her parents or whomever owns that vehicle.
Is driving recklessly really the only symptom of being this emotionally deregulated? Did they not know how stupid or mentally ill she is?
I bet the adults around her did not care or excused her behaviour.
I bet her dad was a party clown who was hoping this would happen.
Like where the fuck do you get all of these assumptions from?
That's fine, but she still made a conscious decision to do it. If she was one year older, would that make any kind of difference?
And let me be clear: mental illness can make some behaviors more understandable, but not murder– if the blame is put solely on mental illness, all that does is put more stigma on it. Not every shitty decision people make is because of "mental illness".
Why only murder? Why not rape or assault or abuse or any number of different crimes deeply mentally ill people commit on the regular that ruin lives far more deeply than the death of a loved one?
I'm not sure you know what the word "reactionary" means if you think that my comments and opinions were "reactionary".
The family can grieve, and my opinion has no bearing on the outcome of whatever happens. My point was, in the end, no matter what the reason, there needs to be consequences for someone who killed people, regardless of what the grieving parties think. I don't think that's particularly radical.
It's a sad and awful situation al around. I can see why those poor families just want to move on.
I witnessed this in a case. Young driver wasn't paying attention and crossed the line, struck head on and killed an elderly woman on her way to chemotherapy, no joke.
On the recommendation and impassioned pleas of the victim's family, the defendant plead a manslaughter charge down to a $75 fine for failure to maintain lane or some such infraction. I don't remember all the facts but was struck by the forward thinking and empathy. The young driver was truly remorseful, part of the pleas were that he had suffered enough, that the memory of what he had done was punishment enough.
Definitely not the same situation at all. This wasn't some distracted driver, she had literally threatened to do exactly this before.
All they commented was that it wasn't the same situation. That's a pretty normal thing to do when someone says "oh yeah I remember that happening in this one instance". They didn't go after the person or bite their head off or even express aggression.
Ironically, you're the one jumping on someone for what they didn't say and perceived aggression that isn't there.
Isn't it equally obvious that there would be a situation where parents of a dead child would want leniency for the accused?
That's a nice story, in a way, but not even remotely close to this case.
It's a direct response to another comment, not to the article.
Sounds like that was an accident, not homicide. That isn't the same thing.
What the fuck are you on about?
Yeah man. I can say I would like to think I would be that forgiving of a person, but I probably wouldn't.