557
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 305 points 10 months ago

“It’s horrible for everybody. Yeah, I lost my son, it’s harder on our family, but I don’t want the rest of her life ruined too. It isn’t going to make me feel any better,” he said.

As hard as it is to say something like that... we need more people like this.

[-] SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 113 points 10 months ago

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."

[-] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 53 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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”

[-] SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

That's fair. Still, though, something is needed.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

I personally have just learned from experience that people who get off easy are likely to continue on the path of destructive behavior.

Likewise, although my experience is with a racist idiot on a Discord server who I was far too lenient with.

[-] SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

Oh, absolutely. The internet adds the layer of anonymity, too, so that certainly doesn't help.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

And if that horse is being hateful and violent on top of that, it's a lost cause.

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 1 points 10 months ago

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.

Ya know, I've never seen anyone say that about the victim in instances like the one you describe.

[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz -1 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 34 points 10 months ago

There's a middle ground between life in prison and just a slap on the wrist

[-] SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago

I agree. 15 years is hardly "life" in prison, though. I think it's more than fair.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 11 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] melonlord@lemmy.ca 26 points 10 months ago

The guy who shot Reagan was already better. /S

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 29 points 10 months ago

Better if he'd hit the goddamn range once or twice...

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

15 years seems like a perfectly adequate amount of time for that.

[-] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Oh it's completely arbitrary. The only way I can think of making it non arbitrary would be a very long study to see how long was necessary for people to genuinely rehabilitate, but even then, it would be based on their own arbitrary sentences.

[-] Comment105@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

Does "15 years to life" mean anything? Or is it just "15 years"?

[-] MajorJimmy@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] EssentialCoffee@midwest.social 7 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 70 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] Red_October@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago

Definitely not the same situation at all. This wasn't some distracted driver, she had literally threatened to do exactly this before.

[-] Stamets@startrek.website 23 points 10 months ago

From what I can tell, they never claimed it was the same situation. They said they've seen victims asking for a reduction in punishment, that's all.

Chill out and stop jumping on people for something they never said.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago

Chill out and stop jumping on people for something they never said.

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.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

I was reacting specifically to the corded portion of the article above, in which one of the victims survivors asked for leniency.

[-] rambaroo@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Sounds like that was an accident, not homicide. That isn't the same thing.

[-] TheWoozy@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Did you read the grandparent comment?

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I was reacting to the specific quote above.

[-] Morcyphr@lemmy.one 12 points 10 months ago

That's a nice story, in a way, but not even remotely close to this case.

[-] TheWoozy@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

It's a direct response to another comment, not to the article.

[-] Dimok@reddthat.com 8 points 10 months ago

Yeah man. I can say I would like to think I would be that forgiving of a person, but I probably wouldn't.

this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2023
557 points (95.7% liked)

News

21737 readers
3696 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. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


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